Dubai Ports selling out

[Rex Kickass]

You may disagree with Minors, but no insults please. The Bush press office? Even Minors deserves better

[BigSqwert]

Rick Santorum on Hardball (in a few minutes) discussing this with Chris Matthews.

[Balta1701]

Rick Santorum on Hardball (in a few minutes) discussing this with Chris Matthews.

Let us know if he answers any questions, or is asked any questions, about the mortgage he got on his house.

[Rex Kickass]

Oh I hope so. "Man On Dog" will be enjoying a Hardball experience today but will be in the unemployment line come January.

[Balta1701]

AP: White House had secret deal with UAE company.

 

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.

 

The administration 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.

 

"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."

 

The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

 

The concessions - described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies - reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

[Balta1701]

NYT

 

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.

 

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.

 

"None of them objected to the deal proceeding on national security grounds," he said.

....

 

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.

[Flash Tizzle]

The first paragraph is significant as well.

 

Since the moment I first heard of this deal, I knew some stipulation concerning terrorism was forged. On Page 1, I was off in suggesting UAE would relinquish it's support of terrorism; but I knew there had to some negotiated benefit for our nation.

[minors]

Minors must be the biggest Bush apologist on this board.  Will he ever break step with the president? He seems to stand side-by-side with him on every single issue. 

 

I am a democrat, and I generally try to respect the opinions of others.  Most GOPers on this board tend agree with the president on most issue, but often disagree on some things.  I respect their views and applaud them when they feel their own party is making a mistake.  Likewise, I concur with the dems on many issues, but will call them out when I think they are wrong...

 

Does minors have any opinions of his own on any matters?  Maybe thats his thing... go on the internet and spew Bush rhertoric acting like all dissentors are traitors. Maybe there is a future for minors in the Bush Press Office....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Wow what a quality post, of course if you would have read further down I said I am not sure about the ports and more I hear the more I dislike it, this must have been to hard to do. I guess if I support our president then I don't have any idea's of my own and I am a bad person? And when have I ever said anyone is a traitor. This is like all other liberal attack styles of going after the messanger instead of the message. And by the way Mods what is up with the personal attacks I thought they were not allowed on here???

[BHAMBARONS]

Minors must be the biggest Bush apologist on this board.  Will he ever break step with the president? He seems to stand side-by-side with him on every single issue. 

 

I am a democrat, and I generally try to respect the opinions of others.  Most GOPers on this board tend agree with the president on most issue, but often disagree on some things.  I respect their views and applaud them when they feel their own party is making a mistake.  Likewise, I concur with the dems on many issues, but will call them out when I think they are wrong...

 

Does minors have any opinions of his own on any matters?

 

 

Ah but minors is a she

[YASNY]

 

This is totally hilarious. I just wonder, is there anybody around here that can tell me why?

 

Texsox, you might be able to do so.

[BigSqwert]

This is totally hilarious.  I just wonder, is there anybody around here that can tell me why?

 

Texsox, you might be able to do so.

You honestly have no idea why people have issues with this? Amazing.

 

There are 11 pages of material you can read through in this post.

Edited February 23, 2006 by BigSqwert

[YASNY]

You honestly have no idea why people have issues with this?  Amazing.

 

There are 11 pages of material you can read through in this post.

 

Honestly, you have no idea what I am getting at here. I'm going to wait awhile before I make my point.

[BigSqwert]

Honestly, you have no idea what I am getting at here. 

I guess not. Seemed like you were questioning why people were opposed to the deal. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[YASNY]

I guess not.  Seemed like you were questioning why people were opposed to the deal.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.

 

Patience is a virtue my friend.

[BigSqwert]

Patience is a virtue my friend.

Dang. I'm on the road for work. Only have small windows of time to check Soxtalk. Oh well.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Patience is a virtue my friend.

I think I get what you are driving at YAS, and I agree lots of people formed opinions on this without having all the facts. I also think that poll is misleading because for a lot of people the issue is not an Arab-controlled company but a state-owned company controlled by a government we are politically at odds with, at least rhetorically. Heck, 10% of the American economy is Arab owned, so for anyone who thinks that's a dealbreaker that horse left the barn long ago.

 

Anyway, now we do know some facts, including:

 

- The Dubai deal was rubber stamped at our end BEFORE the sale between the Brits and Dubai even went through.

 

- The deal was approved unanimously by a board on which Donald Rumsfeld sits, yet Rummy claims he was unaware of the deal until after it was approved unanimously. How it could be approved unanomously without his knowledge/approval is a fair question.

 

- The administration ddecided to bypass the legally mandated 45 day investigation before doing the deal.

 

- Secret terms of the deal pointed out above include provisions letting them escape standard legal scrutiny.

 

- Two BushCo insiders have ties with Dubai Ports World.

 

I'll agree there is some irrational/ignorant dissent with the deal, but you have to agree that there are also entirely valid concerns beyond the non-issue of Arab ownership.

[YASNY]

Alright. Enough drama. I believe it was during the period prior to the Tookie Williams execution, that I posted a poll that showed a vast majority of roughly 80K people were in favor of capital punishment. That poll, like the that was shown in this thread, was an MSNBC poll. Shortly after posting that poll, the liberal Soxtalk contingent swarmed in and unanimously dismissed it as irrelevent because it wasn't conducted scientifically, including, if memory serves, the very person that posted this poll. I was curious as to where all those same people were to shoot down the relevence of this one. Texsox, as a reminder, I think that MSNBC poll I posted was the precursor to the little "button pushing" spat we had.

 

I just couldn't let this pass wothout pointing out the irony.

[BigSqwert]

Shortly after posting that poll, the liberal Soxtalk contingent swarmed in and unanimously dismissed it as irrelevent because it wasn't conducted scientifically, including, if memory serves, the very person that posted this poll. 

I made sure to include the 'not a scientifically valid survey' note in the image.

Edited February 23, 2006 by BigSqwert

[YASNY]

I made sure to include the 'not a scientifically valid survey' note in the image. 

 

You didn't make sure to call it irrelevent.

[NorthSideSox72]

Alright.  Enough drama.  I believe it was during the period prior to the Tookie Williams execution, that I posted a poll that showed a vast majority of roughly 80K people were in favor of capital punishment.  That poll, like the that was shown in this thread, was an MSNBC poll.  Shortly after posting that poll, the liberal Soxtalk contingent swarmed in and unanimously dismissed it as irrelevent because it wasn't conducted scientifically, including, if memory serves, the very person that posted this poll.  I was curious as to where all those same people were to shoot down the relevence of this one.  Texsox, as a reminder, I think that MSNBC poll I posted was the precursor to the little "button pushing" spat we had. 

 

I just couldn't let this pass wothout pointing out the irony.

 

I'll add one more reason to your list, YAS, of why the poll is B.S. The question itself is worded to gain a broader positive response than the poll generally implies. The question, if you read it carefully, asks if "it matters". That is NOT the same thing as asking if it is bad. So that 89% number, even if the poll was conducted more scientfically AND if people had more information, is a crock.

[AbeFroman]

Wow what a quality post, of course if you would have read further down I said I am not sure about the ports and more I hear the more I dislike it, this must have been to hard to do.  I guess if I support our president then I don't have any idea's of my own and I am a bad person? And when have I ever said anyone is a traitor.  This is like all other liberal attack styles of going after the messanger instead of the message.  And by the way Mods what is up with the personal attacks I thought they were not allowed on here???

 

 

This is hardly a personal attack. The argument proffered in your original post(that the president thinks its ok, then it must be) has isolated and angered a huge percentage of this country... including myself.

 

Frankly, the republican controlled congress has adopted this "we follow the president" stance. In five years Bush has NEVER used a veto... He has controlled Congress, the Press Corp, and the agenda like no other president in history. It has alienated many of us on this board and many americans also. My assault on your position is directed at you and others who seem to stand steadfast along side the president no matter what his administration is responsible for (outed a undercover CIA agent, lied about the presence of nucler weapons, sold the port rights to the UAE, etc).

 

I invite you to re-read your original post and deeply ponder its consequences. The GOP has enabled the President to take unparrelled power often without check or balance. This mentality that "The President is ok with it so I am sure everything is fine" is dangerous to civil rights and to democracy itself. That mentality is the biggest threat to checks and balances our country has ever faced.

 

Obviously you don't get it.... otherwise you wouldn't be calling for me to be banned. I never said you were a bad person. I didn't swear. Pretty much the only thing I called you was a Bush apologist (which seems pretty fair actually).

 

Many conservative columnists and bloggers has noted that if Bush thinks the port deal is alright, then its good for america. But in my opinion, that American people NOT to think for themselves...

[Balta1701]

Bush: "People don't need to worry about security. At the ports, we sure don't." Edited February 23, 2006 by Balta1701

[BigSqwert]

Bush: "People don't need to worry about security.  At the ports, we sure don't."

 

Wow. What a retarded thing to say. From a guy who keeps sending the message that we are at war and that the terrorists are out to get us.

 

I guess it's only important during his re-election run.

Edited February 23, 2006 by BigSqwert

[minors]

This is hardly a personal attack.  The argument proffered in your original post(that the president thinks its ok, then it must be) has isolated and angered a huge percentage of this country... including myself.

 

Frankly, the republican controlled congress has adopted this "we follow the president" stance.  In five years Bush has NEVER used a veto... He has controlled Congress, the Press Corp, and the agenda like no other president in history.  It has alienated many of us on this board and many americans also.  My assault on your position is directed at you and others who seem to stand steadfast along side the president no matter what his administration is responsible for (outed a undercover CIA agent, lied about the presence of nucler weapons, sold the port rights to the UAE, etc).

 

I invite you to re-read your original post and deeply ponder its consequences. The GOP has enabled the President to take unparrelled power often without check or balance.  This mentality that "The President is ok with it so I am sure everything is fine" is dangerous to civil rights and to democracy itself.  That mentality is the biggest threat to checks and balances our country has ever faced.

 

Obviously you don't get it.... otherwise you wouldn't be calling for me to be banned.  I never said you were a bad person.  I didn't swear.  Pretty much the only thing I called you was a Bush apologist (which seems pretty fair actually). 

 

Many conservative columnists and bloggers has noted that if Bush thinks the port deal is alright, then its good for america.  But in my opinion, that American people NOT to think for themselves...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well I am not an apologist for anyone I do not support this ports deal, I didn't support cuts to school loans and I most certainly do not support Domestic Spying which I think is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment.

[kapkomet]

Look, I'm not saying I'm for this deal, but why is it automatically assumed the worst thing possible every time the President does something? That's the part I don't get. What if there are more reasons then what's being said? What if these guys were going to help us set up some ways to monitor middle east shipments, etc better? What then? But of course, there would never be any mention of those things.

 

My personal stance on this one is it's not right and shouldn't be done - this being said with the facts that I know right now. But if there's something more that we don't know, then maybe there's more to it.