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.

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:

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.

And what does the UAE have to say about their anti-terrorist efforts?
Why, the following sentence tells us:

quote:

Emirates officials refused to discuss the country's latest steps to combat terror.

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:

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

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:

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

Well dangit, that's a bummer, ain't it?

Clarke warned us against this apparent conflict of interest with UAE:

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

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:

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

But it gets even better as we read the next paragraph:

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

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:

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/

Did that take place? Silly us, of course not! Will it ever? Uhh, right.

quote:

i think all Americans should be tough on terrorism. why Dems aren't i have no idea.

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:

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.

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:

quote:

U.S. Is Given Failing Grades By 9/11 Panel Bipartisan Group Faults Counterterrorism Progress http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5120500097.html

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

quote:

i'm not going to go off the moonbat end with you about this cause it's not even tangent to the subject.

Then why bring it up in the first place?

quote:

suffice it to say that as president, he has been no different thatn any other.

Nothing sufficient to say about it at all – his reputation to the oil and the Sauds precedes him.

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.

I'm running rather long on this post, so I'll save this particular question for a follow-up.

quote:

more insults huh? where are we? DemocraticUnderground.com, the frikken DailyKos?

No more than we're at FreeRepublic or Captain's Quarters, why?

quote:

can't a man think logically...with an open mind about this.

Is that what you're doing?:

quote:

i'd be hard pressed to find any issue that democrats wouldn't blindly jump on seeking a vulnerability of the administration.

Ahh yes, logical, open-mindedness in action.

quote:

take into account all things on a global scale without all the xenophobia? fukkin moonbats dude

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.

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.

That's not what you said and you fucking know it. Let me jog your memory:

quote:

i'd be hard pressed to find any issue that democrats wouldn't blindly jump on seeking a vulnerability of the administration.

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:

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

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.

quote:

what is your opinion of Singapore?

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.

quote:

again, when did i ever attack you about this?

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?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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.

Well let's back up here and go over what was stated. You first mentioned that I was somehow implying that the UAE is not much better than Saudi Arabia image-wise in not allowing them our ports, which I replied that I never implied such a thing (which I'd be interested in you demonstrating otherwise). I side quipped that we have problems with Saudi Arabia as well considering that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from there, and I'd further mention that it's pretty easy to conclude more terrorists have relatively safe haven there as well.

Now granted, I accept Saudi's efforts to combat terrorism, especially since they've got sincere problems of their own. Afterall, al Qaeda doesn't favor them too highly primarily for the Saud's relations with the U.S. Nevertheless, they still harbor terrorists quite well. I'd equate them more to Pakistan – allies in the war on terror, but having a bit of a balance with their people considering there are some al Qaeda sympathizers in the population – esp. those actually harboring bin Laden.

So from that idea you stated that I would have wanted the airbase to remain, rather than evacuate and leave back in '03, to which again I never mentioned nor implied such an idea but you seemingly were quick to try to pin me to such a thought. Does that airbase necessarily aide in combating terrorism and policing Saudi Arabia? That would be interesting to know. I have my doubts, but I won't claim to know for certain. And would it be more appropriate to have us out of a hotspot haven of terrorism if, in fact, our presence is a direct cause of that terrorism in the first place?

Well hey, there's a thought.

Regardless, Saudi Arabia still had their terrorist problems after most of our guys/gals left, so that's seemingly an irrelevant issue to bring up in that context. Does that necessarily make us weaker by pulling them out? To be honest, that's a descent question to ask, but again it's pretty tangential to the central question of protecting our borders and ports, so perhaps it should be best saved for another thread. If you're actually willing to start it and discuss the issue in good faith, I'm willing to contribute as much as I can.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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?

Foreign as in non-ally, yes.
I'm pretty sure I alluded to that above but I'll confirm it again.
I'm sure they have lots of ties with Britian but you just don't get a warm gushy feeling handing over major ports to any Middle Eastern country...do you?
Sorry for being so presumptuous and on the err of caution on this one...

Has anyone found full (or any) disclosure on this deal?

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

Last edited by Fir3start3r on Feb-23-2006 at 05:27

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.

Oh, but it gets better - let's just have Bush look the other way on a few details and allow a few little tidbits to slide:

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.

And this quote really is money:

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

Wow. So tell me again how Bush somehow wasn't aware of this deal until a few days ago? Boy, that's really amazing. Must have been an alter ego or something.....

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Oh yeah, chalk Tom Delay on the list of Democratic Bush haters now too:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon.../D8FUGLP05.html

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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.

>>Source<<

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

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.

Again, take it with that brick of salt. But there is an interesting appeal to the speculation nonetheless. Because it's just damn difficult knowing what we know so far to figure out why Bush is going to such great lengths and threaten a veto on the matter, especially if he supposedly just recently found out about the deal (yeah, right).

But Congress is turning on him and fast. They're essentially telling him to "fuck off" on the whole thing, and that they'll override his bullshit 1st veto if necessary:

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/

This sucker's blowing up in Bush's face bad. It ain't gonna go away, not with this much voice of concern and anger from his own party. I'm actually quite amazed at how well his own party members are actually standing up to him on this.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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?

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?

forgive me, but your last post not withstanding, all i read before was "patronizing racism fueled by illogical paranoia rooted in past events".

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.

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.

Last edited by Q5echo on Feb-23-2006 at 11:48

quote:

So just out of curiosity again, is there anything you disagree with Bush on at all?

no.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus So just out of curiosity again, is there anything you disagree with Bush on at all? quote: Originally posted by Q5echo no.

This is good source material. I can't wait until the 2006/2008 elections come into full swing .

Btw, the whole port scandal is a bunch of fuss about nothing imo.

___________________
Retro ...

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.

Last edited by Q5echo on Feb-23-2006 at 09:27