TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based company
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based c
| quote: |
| so which is it? is it "here and the there" or is it "lip service based on non-reality" i don't think it's either. i don't think it's relevant to this discussion. the only "reality" it marginalizes is a global relationship with trusted partners economically and diplomatically if used in the wrong context like you are doing. |
| quote: |
| al-Qaeda isn't the only organization that has found Dubai useful. The father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has acknowledged heading a clandestine group that, with the help of a Dubai company, supplied Pakistani nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. |
| quote: |
| Emirates officials refused to discuss the country's latest steps to combat terror. |
| quote: |
| The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday. Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said. http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm |
| quote: |
| On February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike. The next day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Ladin�s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely�According to reporting from the tribals, Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis; the tribals expected him to be at the hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11�No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm |
| quote: |
| On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin�The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem� http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm |
| quote: |
| The Bush administration has followed a disturbing pattern in its approach to the war on terror. It has been perpetually willing to sacrifice individual rights in favor of security. But it has been loath to do the same thing when it comes to business interests. It has not imposed reasonable safety requirements on chemical plants, one of the nation's greatest points of vulnerability, or on the transport of toxic materials. The ports deal is another decision that has made the corporations involved happy, and has made ordinary Americans worry about whether they are being adequately protected. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/o...r=1&oref=slogin |
| quote: |
| It is no secret that this administration has pursued an aggressive antiregulatory agenda, and it has elevated corporate leaders to its highest positions. Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department convened the panel that approved the ports deal, came to government after serving as the chief executive of the CSX Corporation, which was a major port operator when he worked there. (After he left, CSX sold its port operations to Dubai Ports World.) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/o...r=1&oref=slogin |
| quote: |
| 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." http://www.treasury.gov/offices/int...rs/exon-florio/ |
| quote: |
| i think all Americans should be tough on terrorism. why Dems aren't i have no idea. |
| quote: |
| Only 2 seaports have the capability to screen 100 percent of the cargo entering the country for radiological or nuclear material, and no airport has the capability to do so... ... for a mere $280 million, the Department could install radiation portal monitors at every port of entry. Yet the President has not requested this funding nor has Congress provided it. |
| quote: |
| U.S. Is Given Failing Grades By 9/11 Panel Bipartisan Group Faults Counterterrorism Progress http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5120500097.html |
| quote: |
| i don't see this as a partisaned issue, although the politics of it interests me. i realize that it's just part of it but it's just so easy to take a tough stand on terrorism in an election year on both sides of the aisle. |
| quote: |
| sure. they did a lot of their training in Germany and Great Britain and here, recieved money from there. used an ATM here, stayed at this dude's house, had some beers in New Jersey. so the fuck what? |
| quote: |
| i'm not going to go off the moonbat end with you about this cause it's not even tangent to the subject. |
| quote: |
| suffice it to say that as president, he has been no different thatn any other. |
| quote: |
| really? then let me ask you this. what do you think the implications would have been if we didn't pull our forces off the Saudi peninsula? you can call him a "bitch" for doing so but how stupid would that be seeing how you're so righteous about defending our homeland. |
| quote: |
| more insults huh? where are we? DemocraticUnderground.com, the frikken DailyKos? |
| quote: |
| can't a man think logically...with an open mind about this. |
| quote: |
| i'd be hard pressed to find any issue that democrats wouldn't blindly jump on seeking a vulnerability of the administration. |
| quote: |
| take into account all things on a global scale without all the xenophobia? fukkin moonbats dude |
| quote: |
| no. the only "dipshit generalization" was my comment about you saying we shouldn't have a country like this running our ports and how many Arab Americans see it differently, which after a comment like that, i still stand by. |
| quote: |
| i'd be hard pressed to find any issue that democrats wouldn't blindly jump on seeking a vulnerability of the administration. |
| quote: |
| Dear Mr. President, In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO � but HELL NO! Sincerely, Sue Myrick (She's a NC � R, by the way) http://images.redstate.com/images/myrickuae.pdf |
| quote: |
| what is your opinion of Singapore? |
| quote: |
| again, when did i ever attack you about this? |
I did want to get to that quote that I mentioned above:
| quote: |
| really? then let me ask you this. what do you think the implications would have been if we didn't pull our forces off the Saudi peninsula? you can call him a "bitch" for doing so but how stupid would that be seeing how you're so righteous about defending our homeland. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tamk like i said i understand where youre coming from but earlier you claimed to express reservations against ANY foriegn entity controlling ports which you considered an affront to soverignity. - however the port was already controlled by foregin entity but it was from the UK and its now being bought. - so i was clearing that point up its the fact that the port will be controlled by a middle eastern company that bothers you. am i right? |
And the tin foil hat comes off
So now we see a secret deal by the White House and Dubai over these ports that no one fucking knew about. Information exchange for approval of a takeover:
| quote: |
| The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions. ...As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment. |
| quote: |
| (They) did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries. |
| quote: |
| "They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223.../ports_security |
Oh yeah, chalk Tom Delay on the list of Democratic Bush haters now too:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon.../D8FUGLP05.html
The WSJ weights in some pros and cons.
They essentially are saying what I've been saying, the U.S. hasn't done their 'due diligence' on this deal and the UAE is the warmest of the Middle Eastern countries to deal with, although they agree more with the deal than I do...
| quote: |
Ports of Politics How to sound like a hawk without being one. Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is the latest Republican to broadcast his "independence" from President Bush on homeland security, yesterday joining Senator Lindsey Graham, Representative Peter King and numerous state politicians in calling on the Administration to stop a deal that would allow a United Arab Emirates company to manage six major U.S. ports. The Democrats are also piling on, and we'll speak to that in a moment, but this behavior of Republicans strikes us as peculiar coming from people who claim to support the war on terror. Mr. Graham told Fox News that the Administration's decision allowing the state-owned Dubai Ports World to run commercial operations at U.S. ports was "tone deaf politically." The voluble Senator said this is no time "to outsource major port security to a foreign-based company" and that "most Americans are scratching their heads wondering, 'Why this company, from this region, now?' " Some of us are scratching our heads all right, but we're wondering why Mr. Graham and others believe Dubai Ports World has been insufficiently vetted for the task at hand. So far, none of the critics have provided any evidence that the Administration hasn't done its due diligence. The deal has been blessed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multiagency panel that includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security. Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us three things: First, this work is already being outsourced to "a foreign-based company"; second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown; and third, Mr. Graham likes to talk first and ask questions later. Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials. "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation." In a telephone interview yesterday, Kristie Clemens of U.S. Customs and Border Protection elaborated that "Customs and Border Protection has the sole responsibility for the cargo processing and cargo security, incoming and outgoing. The port authority sets the guidelines for the entire port, and port operators have to follow those guidelines." Again, nothing in the pending deal would affect that arrangement. The timing of this sudden uproar is also a tad suspicious. A bidding war for the British-owned P&O has been going on since last autumn, and the P&O board accepted Dubai's latest offer last month. The story only blew up last week, as a Florida firm that is a partner with P&O in Miami, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc., filed a suit to block the purchase. Miami's mayor also sent a letter of protest to Mr. Bush. It wouldn't be the first time if certain politicians were acting here on behalf of private American commercial interests. Critics also forget, or conveniently ignore, that the UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation. UAE leaders are as much an al Qaeda target as Tony Blair. As for the Democrats, we suppose this is a two-fer: They have a rare opportunity to get to the right of the GOP on national security, and they can play to their union, anti-foreign investment base as well. At a news conference in front of New York harbor, Senator Chuck Schumer said allowing the Arab company to manage ports "is a homeland security accident waiting to happen." Hillary Clinton is also along for this political ride. So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for "hearts and minds" now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be closed because it's terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen. That's all sure to play well on al Jazeera. Yesterday Mr. Bush defended his decision to allow the investment to go ahead, and he threatened what would be his first veto if Congress tries to block it. We hope this time he means it. |
An interesting twist to Bush's notion is being whispered on the blogs - so take it with a major grain of salt. Senator Warner today on CNN mentioned about maintaining access to ports worldwide. Ed Henry of CNN replied that UAE hosts more US Navy ports than any other country. It would seemingly be a bit imperitive for us not to screw with them, lest they get pissed off and pull back on permission for our ships to dock at their ports.
But why would we care? Take a read at Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies on p. 111:
| quote: |
| In May 1996, shortly before the Atlanta Olympics, word reached Washington of a remarkable discovery made by the Belgian authorities. They had intercepted a shipment en route to Germany. Inside what was labeled as "pickles" was a custom-designed weapon best described as the largest mortar ever seen. The weapon was designed to lob a large explosive charge a short distance, such as over the walls of an Israeli or US embassy compound. The shipment was traced to Iran. The Defense Department agreed to our request to station an additional aircraft carrier battle group in the waters off Iran temporarily, as a deterrent signal to Tehran. The Navy was growing increasingly concerned with anti-ship missiles that Iran was placing on islands in the Persian Gulf and on its coastline, particularly at the narrow point in the Gulf leading to the Indian Ocean, the Straits of Hormuz. In early May, DOD announced that Iran had acquired long-range missiles from North Korea and was engaged in a program to protect its missiles in hardened bunkers. The Navy relied on two ports in the Persian Gulf. Only one, in the United Arab Emirates, could handle an aircraft carrier. That port, near Dubai, saw more U.S. Navy ships anchored and more U.S. sailors ashore than any harbor outside the United States during the 1990s. It remained, however, a commercial facililty with no permanent U.S. Navy facility. The U.S. Navy base was a few hundred kilometers up the Gulf in the island nation of Bahrain. There, thousands of U.S. sailors lived and worked. After the Tanker War and then the first Gulf War, the little Navy base at Bahrain had mushroomed into a large and active facility. In 1996, DOD announced that the base would now be headquarters to a new entity, the Fifth Fleet. With the Soviet navy rusting at Siberian ports and the Iraqi Navy sitting on the bottom of the Persian Gulf and Shatt al-Arab, the Fifth Fleet had only one possible enemy: Iran. |
| quote: |
| n a sign of the growing bipartisan opposition to the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates, lawmakers on Wednesday ratcheted up their displeasure with President Bush, some saying that they could override a threatened presidential veto. On the heels of debacles over government eavesdropping, Katrina recovery and Vice President Cheney�s hunting accident, people in both parties are suggesting the port security issue is another case of Bush appearing to be tone deaf to controversy. .....Republican Rep. Peter King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, both of New York, said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal. �I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it,� said King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Rep. Jim Saxton, R-N.J., also indicated Bush faced a serious struggle. �This deal doesn't pass the national security test,� he said. �I think it's a mistake. If necessary, Congress should act independently of the President. Frankly, I think we can override a veto. We have more than enough votes to do it.� http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/ |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE based c
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I see, so having some direct ties to Al Qaeda, coupled with some new revealing things seen today is somehow marginalizing a global relationship with a "trusted" partner. So let's review the lovely list: # The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. # The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia. # According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system. # After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts. Next we have: "Osama bin Laden's operatives still use this freewheeling city as a logistical hub" Oh, I forgot to show another nice little money quote from that same USAToday article. It's nice to see that it isn't just Al Qaeda that looooves the UAE � one of our favorite boys does too: And what does the UAE have to say about their anti-terrorist efforts? Why, the following sentence tells us: And lo and behold, what else do we learn today? Why, it's more lovely ties of this government to yet another one of our favorite characters. You see, George Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that we didn't target bin Laden in 1999 in Afghanistan. Why, you ask? Well darnit, because that wiley character was meeting our good friends, the UAE: Now THAT would have been REALLY bad business with our so-called "allies", wouldn't it? Now don't take that report's word for it, read the 9/11 Commission report yourself: Well dangit, that's a bummer, ain't it? Clarke warned us against this apparent conflict of interest with UAE: But hey, neither Rice nor Cheney listened to him, so why should we? Furthermore, they have this dang tendency to be slightly anti-Semitic (and a little anti-American to boot): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Jul27.html And hey, the human trafficking through the UAE doesn't just end with terrorists, but we have some lovely women and child slavery traffickers through there as well: http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/U...rabEmirates.htm http://abcnews.go.com/International...id=79131&page=1 Ahh, but it's all about business, right? Well as the NYTimes opines, that really is a bit of a double standard with Bush: But it gets even better as we read the next paragraph: Ahh, so now we see the major person performing this transaction, John Snow, has a wee bit of a conflict of interest. But did that stop this deal from going through? Of course not, nor did it stop it likely being an illegal process. Illegal, I say? Well in normal circumstances involving foreign direct investment the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) first conducts a 30-day �review� of the transaction. After the review, the committee makes a judgment as to whether a 45-day �investigation� is necessary to address national security concerns. With this recent purchase, in accordance to CFIUS a 45-day review is mandatory: Did that take place? Silly us, of course not! Will it ever? Uhh, right. Cute little snipe with such little merit. I'll give you hint � because it's not the Dems. who are in power. Revealing, ain't it? I mean, checking only 5% of the crates coming into our ports: http://www.feer.com/articles1/2006/0601/free/p005.html Bush wanting to dismantle the hurting Port Security Grant Program by folding it into another grant program and forcing port operators to compete for scarce funds with other transit systems: http://www.fcw.com/article92241-02-07-06-Web Not to mention that U.S. Customs needs tens of thousands of more employees and a few billion $ short: http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/032003ohanlon.htm Or worker background checks at the ports going completely unnoticed: http://hsc-democrats.house.gov/HS/P...us+Concerns.htm And in the same report above mentions this about radiation monitoring: But hey, I know we shouldn't talk completely about adequately securing our ports. We can talk about how this GOP Congress and this GOP Administration has done in the post-9/11 world to secure us from such attacks: Oops, sorry. I meant to talk about how well we've gone after bin Laden. That guy who attacked us on our soiol got captured by now, right?: http://abcnews.go.com/International...tory?id=1640271 Shit, wait. I meant, going after Saddam in Iraq was in our interests for national security, right? We didn't need to capture that guy who attacked us � by going after Saddam we drove a steak through al Qaeda, right?: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...aqterror05.html Well dangit, if I didn't know any better, I'd say any sane, logical thinking fool would believe this current Administration and current GOP in charge has done jack fucking shit about truly protecting us. But hey, who wants little tidbit facts like these to get in our way? Actions tend to speak louder than words. Given the actions of the Administration mentioned above, I think it's pretty safe to say they have some serious work to do to adequately protect us from any further terrorist attacks. Their rhetoric has a long way to go to meet reality. Germany, Great Britain, and America did not have the ties and close connections to the man who attacked us the way the UAE has, nor would they ever look the other way in the same manner that the UAE has blatantly done so. Let's keep in mind here that we're not just talking about a corporation. We're talking about a government-owned corporation with a rather conflicting rapsheet on being "anti-terrorist", let alone being our ally. Then why bring it up in the first place? Nothing sufficient to say about it at all � his reputation to the oil and the Sauds precedes him. I'm running rather long on this post, so I'll save this particular question for a follow-up. No more than we're at FreeRepublic or Captain's Quarters, why? Is that what you're doing?: Ahh yes, logical, open-mindedness in action. There's nothing xenophobic about it. I don't want a government-run company running 6 of our countries' major ports given the rap sheet that they have. Bush talks so fucking hard about protecting ourselves, to the point where we have to give him absolute power on our individual rights. But when it comes to companies and governments with fucking records like the one I outlined, well shit � all is well if the fucking $ sign is waved around, ain't it? We attacked Iraq because of alleged and unfounded meetings with Al Qaeda members in fucking Prague, but we can't keep companies with actual ties and connections out of our fucking ports? Damn, I keep realizing just how silly I'm being. That's not what you said and you fucking know it. Let me jog your memory: Which directly implies the Democrats jumping on this issue because it goes against Bush's actions. The problem as I correctly point out is that it's not the Democrats who've been the most vocal about this. Here's another example of a REPUBLICAN showing some sincere contempt to Bush's actions: And tack on Dennis Hastert now to the list too. So whatever bullshit generalizations you have of Democrats supposedly jumping on the bandwagon here to bash Bush, then you're logically connecting some of the most powerful GOP leaders and Legislatures as well. Good one. Lovely place. My wife before I knew her spent a summer there. She loved the beaches and the cleanliness of the place. Thought the government was a bit strict, but overall the people were great. They also don't seem to have so many ties to the mother****** who attacked us on our soil, let alone have near the laundry list that I created above, but I leave plenty of room for correction if you wish to rebute. So if they took over the ports had the UAE not done so, I guess my little heart wouldn't pitter patter so much along with many Republicans and Democrats together. I didn't say attack me personally � I said attack anything that runs counter to Bush's stance on issues. You seemingly support him at all stops without exception. I have never seen such blind support from anyone except perhaps my Senator Roberts who sits and stalls on Intelligence matters and hopes they go away. And the methods of doing so is so lovely and Coulterish with a jab and a smear at any Lefty/Democrat possible. It's just simply breathtaking to watch you defend him at all stops, even on issues such as this that has so much bipartisan support. It's to the point now that Bush has come out with his "I didn't know shit about this deal" defense, yet again: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/ So just out of curiosity again, is there anything you disagree with Bush on at all? |
| quote: |
| So just out of curiosity again, is there anything you disagree with Bush on at all? |
| quote: | ||
| Originally posted by MisterOpus So just out of curiosity again, is there anything you disagree with Bush on at all?
|
.
yay. reason
if Cyrus King had a dollar for every time M-Opus jerked his knee to the left like a hysterical woman, he'd have the sex-change operation he's always wanted already.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. to sell off 6 major ports to UAE
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo okay so what you're saying is that in DP buying P&O in a multi-billion $ global takover, the UAE can now somehow backdoor a terrorist plot thru their control of the ports without any risk, or if a risk was implied it would mean the end of their own existence? am i assuming you correctly? what do think are their intentions here? not to make money and risk their total annihilation? |
| quote: |
| * The deal has been long scrutinized and is backed up by our War President and the DoD and it's perfectly fine * Rummy and Bush just heard about it the other day * The UAE has been the best ally in the war on terra and has cooperated in all investigations * The UAE owned company promises to cooperate in future investigations IF they get this deal * Except they don't have to fully cooperate and have even been granted a special deal so that they don't have to keep records available to U.S. subpoena or court order, you know, just in case there's something they want to hide |
| quote: |
| forgive me, but your last post not withstanding, all i read before was "patronizing racism fueled by illogical paranoia rooted in past events". |
| quote: |
| you are slightly mislead or wrong about the "mandatory" 45 day CFIUS review. yes, in 1992 the writing required 45 days, but there is other legislation that states 45 day adjudication can be waived if the company is not a security threat. now there is nothing in DPWorld's history of business practice that would deem them to be so though i suspect that there are dozens of teams of crack interns somewhere trying to dig something up. |
| quote: |
| 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." |
| quote: |
| now you did make some valid points from the 911 report. i saw that on DemocraticUnderpants.com this morning. but i have to say it's nothing concrete. there is all kinds of dirt you can bring up on the UAE. try Egypt and Jordan as well. and yes, Saudi Arabia. I'm not willing to give these countries another reason to not cooperate with us, especially the UAE, neither should any other county. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo yay. reason if Cyrus King had a dollar for every time M-Opus jerked his knee to the left like a hysterical woman, he'd have the sex-change operation he's always wanted already. |
The latest from the Times. Some intersting quotes in bold:
| quote: |
| February 23, 2006 The Reaction Panel Saw No Security Issue in Port Contract, Officials Say By ELISABETH BUMILLER and CARL HULSE WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 � The Bush administration decided last month that a deal to hand over operations at major American ports to a government-owned company in Dubai did not involve national security and so did not require a more lengthy review, administration officials said Wednesday. The decision was made by an interagency committee led by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt. The group included officials from 12 departments and agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Justice, State and Homeland Security, as well as the National Security Council and the National Economic Council. |
| quote: |
| In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Mr. Kimmitt said that the company, Dubai Ports World, had been thoroughly investigated by the administration, including by intelligence agencies, and that on Jan. 17 the panel members unanimously approved the transfer. |
| quote: |
| "None of them objected to the deal proceeding on national security grounds," he said. Mr. Kimmitt made his comments as the political furor over the ports dominated Washington, where Republicans in Congress remained in open rebellion against President Bush and the White House spent the day trying to tamp down the uprising. An objection from any member of the interagency committee would have started, as required by law, an additional 45-day review. Such a review is being urged by governors and members of Congress. Mr. Bush and his top aides are strongly resisting that. Even before the transfer became known, the administration's review of foreign business deals had come under criticism for not being sufficiently sensitive to national security. In September, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said the Treasury Department, as head of the interagency committee that reviews such deals, had used an overly narrow definition of national security threats because it wanted to encourage foreign investment. The department disputed those findings, saying that the committee had used an adequate definition and that decisions had been reached by consensuses of agencies with differing interests. |
| quote: |
| The review began in mid-October. The chief operating officer of Dubai Ports World, Edward H. Bilkey, said he and other executives met in December with Mr. Kimmitt's committee and then had numerous additional meetings before the final decision. "There is no big deal about it," Mr. Bilkey said in an interview. "We complied with what the requirements were, and there was no problem." Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman, said Mr. Bush became aware over the weekend of the deal, for some of the facilities in several major ports, including New York, Baltimore and Miami. "One thing the president did, and even after all this press coverage of this transaction, was go back to every cabinet member whose department is involved in this process and ask them, 'Are you comfortable with this deal going forward?' " Mr. McClellan said. "And each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward." In a rare admission of error and in an indication that the White House might be seeking a deal with Capitol Hill to halt the furor, Mr. McClellan also said, "We probably should have briefed Congress about it sooner." Republicans said an agreement by the White House to delay the transfer would help. "If the president announces between now and next Monday or Tuesday that he is going to hold it for 45 days, have an investigation and consult with Congress, I think that would at least buy time," said Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican who is a leading opponent of the new port management. He said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois had assured him that they "were on the same page" on halting the sale. The White House dispatched aides to brief advisers to the Republican leadership on the rationale for the deal, and the port company retained high-powered help to deal with Capitol Hill, including former Senator Bob Dole and the lobbying firm of former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright. Mr. Bush threatened on Tuesday to veto any bills to block a deal for the company to run the ports. Lawmakers and aides said the nearly united Republican resistance in Congress was a new atmosphere for a White House accustomed to strong public support for its policies and the willingness to settle any disagreements privately. But it was not seen as a permanent break. "Over the past five years, the president has made the right call over and over again," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff for Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader. "This is one time. Nobody wants to come to a giant battle over this. We want homeland security. He wants homeland security." Democrats who joined in the call to scuttle the port transfer said they considered Congressional Republicans newcomers on port security. They began circulating voting records to show that Republicans had rejected increases in spending on port safety. |
| quote: |
| "All of the sudden, they want to act really tough," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "But when it came to strengthening port security and implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, they were nowhere to be found." |
| quote: |
| Before the administration approved the transfer from a British company, P&O Ports, Dubai Ports World had to agree to cooperate with future United States investigations, said an administration official who spoke only if granted anonymity because of the confidentiality of the agreement. The official, confirming details first reported by the Associated Press, said the company agreed to disclose on demand records about "foreign operational direction" of its United States ports, including details on equipment, design and operations. The company does not have to keep copies of business records on American soil, where they would be subject to court orders, the official said. The report by the General Accountability Office in September included sharp criticism of the review process carried out by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the committee created in 1975 to review foreign investments that could affect national security. The report said the committee, under the Clinton and Bush administrations, had often construed national security too narrowly, looking only at such factors as the control over technology exports, classified contracts and specific derogatory information about a company. For that reason, the report said, the committee had too rarely subjected investments to intensive scrutiny. In addition, the report said Treasury officials believed that "being the subject of an investigation may have negative connotations for a company." Since 1997, the government has investigated 8 out of 470 notifications of pending contracts. Stephen Labaton and Eric Lipton contributed reporting for this article. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/p...r=1&oref=slogin |
Thanks for staying on top of this, Mr. Opus! Given my proximity to the Port of Baltimore, even my conservative Republican relatives are up in arms about this one. Port security was lacking before, but in the post-9/11 world it's definitely a hard topic especially when looking at Bush's port security budget cuts, etc.
From an article from 2004:
| quote: |
| While airports have received billions of dollars in security upgrades since 9/11, less attention has been paid to seaports. Despite some toughening of cargo-ship-security standards, some port officials and security experts worry that terrorists could smuggle people or weapons aboard shipping containers, which are documented and tracked but almost never inspected when they enter the country. One terrorist incident involving shipping containers already has been documented. In March, at the closely guarded Israeli port of Ashdod, two Palestinian suicide bombers reportedly stowed away in a hidden compartment of a cargo container and detonated explosives, killing 10 people. But the scenario most talked about is that a terrorist could smuggle a nuclear device in a cargo container. A study by Stanford University researchers has estimated that under current practices, authorities stood at best a one-in-four chance of detecting a nuclear warhead smuggled into the U.S. in a cargo container, Flynn testified to Congress in March. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht..._murray22m.html |
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.
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/braden...cs/13922695.htm
Oh this is good - my former Senator Bob Dole is a lobbyist for UAE.
Well who is he lobbying? Why, his wife for starters, the Senator from North Carolina!:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/22/wednesday/index.html
Talk about connections! Damn, Abramoff would be proud!
CNN's Jack Cafferty Highlights Calls for Bush's Impeachment Over Ports
Posted by Brent Baker on February 22, 2006 - 12:21.
Politicians across the political spectrum are raising their voices against the arrangement which would allow a United Arab Emirates company to manage six U.S. seaports, and on Tuesday's Situation Room, CNN's Jack Cafferty acted as a rabble-rousing activist as he encouraged his viewers to rise up against any politician who doesn't act to block the deal and he highlighted two viewer e-mails which advocated the impeachment of President Bush over the matter. Cafferty excoriated: "If our elected representatives don't do everything in their power to stop this thing, each of us should vow to work tirelessly to see that they are removed from public office....Here's the question. What should be done to stop a deal that would allow an Arab company with ties to terrorism to run U.S. ports?" Cafferty soon read from one e-mailer who argued that "this deal is nothing short of collusion with a foreign power of unknown intent during wartime. The President should be impeached." And another: "Putting George Bush in charge of our country was a huge mistake, and my fellow citizens finally realize that it was a disaster. Time to impeach this President." (Transcript follows)
This item appeared in Wednesday's MRC CyberAlert.
The MRC's Megan McCormack caught the "Cafferty File" about 16 minutes into the 4pm EST hour of the February 21 Situation Room:"Wolf, this may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back, this deal to sell control of six U.S. ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates. There are now actually Senators and Congressmen and Governors and Mayors telling the White House you're not going to do this, and it's about time. No one has said no to this administration on anything that matters in a very long time. Well, this matters, matters a lot. If this deal is allowed to go through, we deserve whatever we get. A country with ties to terrorists will have a presence at six critical doorways to our country. And if anyone thinks the terrorists in time won't figure out how to exploit that, than we're all done. Nothing's happened yet, mind you, but if our elected representatives don't do everything in their power to stop this thing, each of us should vow to work tirelessly to see that they are removed from public office. We're at a crossroads. Which way will we choose? Here's the question. What should be done to stop a deal that would allow an Arab company with ties to terrorism to run U.S. ports? E-mail us at [email protected] or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile."
At 4:58pm EST Cafferty returned with the feedback he got as he read some selected viewer e-mails with the text displayed on screen:"The question, Wolf, is what should be done to stop a deal that would allow an Arab company to operate six U.S. ports. We are getting tons of e-mail. Alan in Silver Springs, Maryland, 'The U.S. Congress must stand tall and united against the administration's plan. They must force the President to withdraw the government's approval.' Em in Barrington, Illinois,
'This deal is nothing short of collusion with a foreign power of unknown intent during wartime. The President should be impeached.' Mike writes, 'This administration has been going in the wrong direction. They've now turned a trot into a mad dash toward oblivion. This C grade President and his cronies are threatening our existence. This port deal must be stopped.' J.R., or excuse me, J.B., Raleigh, North Carolina, 'Jack, give someone enough rope, he'll hang himself. The arrogance of the Bush administration has finally caught up with it, and we're united at last. Putting George Bush in charge of our country was a huge mistake, and my fellow citizens finally realize that it was a disaster. Time to impeach this President.' Eric in Medina, Ohio, 'Congress must act to bar turning port security and operations over to foreign governments or foreign companies. Not merely Arab governments and companies, any foreign authority. American ports must be under the control of our citizens.' And David writes from Hawaii, 'The last time we had a government that was non-responsive to the wishes of the people they governed, we had a revolution.' Wolf?"
http://newsbusters.org/node/4146
**a-hem**
whose interests does bush really have in mind?
The underdog?
*warning - sweeping generalization follows*
There's really something interesting that I picked up which made me think here. It's a simple thought of race-baiting mixed with a bit of ironic paranoia that it makes one wonder exactly what and where this all came from. Then it occurred:
This Administration has fed us paranoia and fear over the past 5 fucking years. It's been nothing but a return to 9/11 paranoia mixed with "mushroom clouds" and "you vote for Kerry and we'll get attacked again", sprinkled with a couple dozen Tom Ridge terrorist alerts being thrown in our faces.
So what do you have? Well according to most polls, you have the majority of soccer moms and most individuals voting in Bush for his supposed strength - protecting our country and enhancing National Security. I've outlined previously how much of a fucking farce I believe that to truly be here, but there's something really interesting going on with this port sale fiasco -
Bush's fear mongering and paranoia whipping has come back to sock him right square in the fucking face. The very same ardent supporters, whether it be the citizens or his own Congress have stood firm in their dissent as they continue to drive home the fear factor that was originated and propelled by Bush and gave him his second term.
And the ultimate irony of it all now? Well take a look at this statement by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England:
| quote: |
| If the furor over the port deal should go on, Mr. England said, it would give enemies of the United States aid and comfort: "They want us to become distrustful, they want us to become paranoid and isolationist." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/p...artner=homepage |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 the previous guy had a blowjob by an intern, while the GOP spent over $60 million of our taxpayer money on that investigation |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But then again, the previous guy had a blowjob by an intern, while the GOP spent over $60 million of our taxpayer money on that investigation which originally had nothing to do with that blowjob, so I guess I could be wrong....... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X And how much did we spend to investigate what really happened in regards to the events of 9/11? Only a fraction of that amount - but they knew exactly who did it only a few hours later. How much money did we give the Taliban in 2001? $43 Million. Priorities? Definitely not to the citizens of our country. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo wait. you mean $43 million in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan because in '99 that president that was impeached on perjury and witness tampering imposed sactions (that were still upheld until the war, mind you)against the Taliban but still gave the same amount for humanitarian aid. that was after that same president, brought up on obstuction of justice, gave them $25 million directly in '97. your point again? |
| quote: |
| U.S. Taxpayers send Billions to our Enemies in Afghanistan Even before September 11th, most Americans were well aware of the hostility that many Middle Eastern nations have for the U.S. Our experiences with Iran, Libya, Iraq, and now Afghanistan have understandably soured many Americans on the entire region. Indeed, the majority of anti-American sentiment in the post-Cold War era originates in the Middle East. What many Americans don't realize, however, is the extent to which their own foreign aid tax dollars are spent funding our current and future enemies in the region. We should recognize that American tax dollars helped to create the very Taliban government that now wants to destroy us. In the late 1970s and early 80s, the CIA was very involved in the training and funding of various fundamentalist Islamic groups in Afghanistan, some of which later became today's brutal Taliban government. In fact, the U.S. government admits to giving the groups at least 6 billion dollars in military aid and weaponry, a staggering sum that would be even larger in today's dollars. Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA, and that agency's military and financial assistance helped the Afghan rebels build a set of encampments around the city of Khost. Tragically, those same camps became terrorist training facilities for Bin Laden, who uses some of the same soldiers our military once trained as lieutenants in his sickening terrorist network. Our heroic pilots are now busy bombing the same camps we paid to build, all the while threatened by the same Stinger missiles originally supplied by our CIA. Once again, the stark result of our foreign aid, however well-intentioned, was the arming and training of forces that later become our enemy. Our foolish funding of Afghan terrorists hardly ended in the 1980s, however. Millions of your tax dollars continue to pour into Afghanistan even today. Our government publicly supported the Taliban right up until September 11. Already in 2001 the U.S. has provided $125 million in so-called humanitarian aid to the country, making us the world's single largest donor to Afghanistan. Rest assured the money went straight to the Taliban, and not to the impoverished, starving residents that make up most of the population. Do we really expect a government as intolerant and anti-west as the Taliban to use our foreign aid for humane purposes? If so, we are incredibly naive; if not, we foolishly have been seeking to influence a government that regards America as an enemy. Incredibly, in May the U.S. announced that we would reward the Taliban with an additional $43 million in aid for its actions in banning the cultivation of poppy used to produce heroin and opium. Taliban rulers had agreed to assist us in our senseless drug war by declaring opium growing "against the will of God." They weren't serious, of course. Although reliable economic data for Afghanistan is nearly impossible to find (there simply is not much of an economy), the reality is that opium is far and away the most profitable industry in the country. The Taliban was hardly prepared to give up virtually its only source of export revenue, any more than the demand for opium was suddenly going to disappear. If anything, Afghanistan's production of opium is growing. Experts estimate it has doubled since 1999; the relatively small country is now believed to provide the raw material for fully 75% of the world's heroin. How tragic that our government was willing to ignore Taliban brutality in its quest to find "victories" in the failed drug war. U.S. taxpayers have a right to know exactly what we're getting for our foreign aid dollars. Have we helped bring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan? Have we eased suffering there? Have we added to stability in the region? Have we earned the love or respect of the Afghan people? Have we made an ally of the Taliban government? The answer to all of these entirely reasonable questions is a resounding NO. Afghanistan is in chaos, its people starving, and its government is now an outright enemy of the United States. As we yet again find ourselves at war with forces we once funded and supported, the wisdom of foreign aid must be challenged. Peaceful relations and trade with every nation should be our goals, and the first step in accomplishing both should be to stop sending taxpayer dollars overseas. http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst110501.htm |
| quote: |
| In July, 2000, according to a report by a Pakistani journalist, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Christina Rocca met the Taliban in Islamabad and announced US$43 million in food and shelter aid. Later, the US State Department made clear that the humanitarian assistance was spent by the Taliban in a fashion that was not the way the US wanted it to. In order to resolve this problem, renewed US contacts with the Taliban were made. That came in the form of a visit by seven US officials to Kabul in late April, 2001. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EK22Ag01.html |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.