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?

Ya know, I must admit this was my first initial reaction. But as my very first post in this thread points out, I found out rather quickly that the security issue is a nonissue in regards to this company controlling the ports. Our Coast Guard, Customs, and Homeland Security will still remain in charge of security issues, which has sincere problems of their own (checking 5% of imports), but that's a nonissue.

So no, I don't think of this as a security threat. Rather, I think it's bad business and completely flies in the face of Bush's rhetoric, yet again, on how we curtail terrorism and countries that sponsor terrorism. We have to keep in mind here that we're not just talking about an everyday run of the mill international business - we're talking about a state-run business with a state that has some very serious questionable relationship problems with al Qaeda along with some other interesting problems (children and women slavery). Therein lies the core problem with me, and if I had not made that clear then well hopefully I have now.

And some of the other issues I'm finding out now are just how sneaky this whole process truly was with Bush's full knowledge. With that last AP article, it really leaves a confusing mess. As one blogger points out, we now have to conclude the following:

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

It just makes you go, "HUH?"

I mean, if they're such great allies with us on terrorism, why the deal of these ports for exchange of info.? Why the promise to cooperate with future investigations if they're such good allies? And why grant them abilities not to fully cooperate with investigations in that last part mentioned? That AP story really does throw a monkey wrench in this whole thing.

quote:

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

If that's truly the impression you got, then I cannot tell you enough how incorrect it was. My problem is demonstrating not only the apparent secrecy of this ordeal, but how it contradicts Bush's rhetoric on him being tough on terrorism.

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.

Well I read that too, and I realize that they are one of our best Arab allies. Nevertheless I'll let their conflicting record speak for itself, and again I'll point out that this was not a "security" issue for me. Those two provisions I caught were:

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."

Upon a second glance there is an "and" between those, meaning they are not mutually exclusive. So you might actually have a point here. However given what we've known so far, and even hearing some confessions from the Scotty boy yesterday, it was pretty clear that Bush was trying to tiptoe this thing through without anyone noticing.

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.

DemocraticUnderground? Can't say I ever venture on their site. Sometimes even a little too "moonbat" for me. Maybe this is a bunch of hooey over nothing. But again, it really calls into question what kind of interests were involved here, esp. with Snow's conflict of interest, esp. Bush's first veto threat, esp. pushing this deal through in such a hush-hush fasion, and so on. If this is a bunch of hooey, so be it. But let's take a good look at the deal and break it down in detail to see.

I'm more than happy to be wrong if we examine the details and see exactly what this was all about.

___________________
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 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.

This is coming from a guy that can't smell anything but roses when he puts his nose up Bush's anus. Because by golly, Bush is never, ever wrong.

By all means pot, keep calling kettle.

And by such cute little remarks I must conclude that Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, and almost all of the entire Republican caucus are knee-jerking to the left like hysterical little women too.

I didn't realize how popular Leftist views were lately, even among Republicans.

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

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Feb-23-2006 at 14:49

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.

Dept. of Defense? By golly, did Rummy just get caught in another little truth bender? Shocking, truly.

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.

Now are we to believe that the Administration went through this process without its boss, Dubya, being involved here? I mean, afterall, Bush just found out about the deal a few days ago, right?

Right?

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.

Interesting history from the nonpartisan GAO.

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.

Which is the right issue for the Democrats to bring up. They're not merely jumping on this ship of dissent because of the nonissue of UAE and port security, as you continue to imply, Q. Rather, they're pointing out the obvious discrepancies of the Republicans and port security being so fucking piss poor in the post-9/11 era as a whole.

The strange and sad thing here is, it is seemingly the Republicans who are being the xenophobes to a much greater extent than the Democrats. Oh sure, I'll bet there might be a few Dems. here and there, but rather than pushing the UAE security threat issue, they're jumping on the Republicans for being lackadaisical (sp?) on border security as a whole (which I pointed out the obvious discrepancies earlier).

So are they using this issue as a platform to rail the Republicans and this Administration on National Security? Hell yes, and rightfully so.

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."

Yeah, and it's truly amazing what people will do come an election year.

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

And now we see some criticism on Clinton as well, which is perfectly fine with me. There's plenty of criticism I have for Clinton on a myriad of issues.

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

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!

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

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."

**a-hem**



whose interests does bush really have in mind?

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

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

It's really breathtaking. It's okay to be afraid and be fearful of John Kerry, the Democrats, and anyone who opposes Bush. But utilizing that same fear against a secret hush hush deal by Bush with a government-run company with questionable ties and dealings with our main enemy is now aiding the enemy. So be afraid, but only when we tell you to be afraid, because we know what's best and when to stir your fears appropriately.

How the fuck does any ordinary citizen take this Administration seriously anymore? How the fuck could you? You can't take them at face value, nor could you possibly take them seriously in detailed analytical value. I've never witnessed nor heard of a bigger fuckup of an Administration in my life.

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.......

*/generalization*

___________________
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 the previous guy had a blowjob by an intern, while the GOP spent over $60 million of our taxpayer money on that investigation

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 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.......

...on that note...ladies break out your best blue dress....he's hiring again...
>>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."