Another Reason...

[Annie]

Why do you insist on blanketing the whole thing by calling it all lies. This is the same tactic I see the libs using against Bush all the time. They say he's lying without giving one iota of proof. If you think these terrorist ties are somehow wrong, back it up with something a little stronger than "they're lies."

Cause it's what he does.

 

[dilloduck]

Why do you insist on blanketing the whole thing by calling it all lies. This is the same tactic I see the libs using against Bush all the time. They say he's lying without giving one iota of proof. If you think these terrorist ties are somehow wrong, back it up with something a little stronger than "they're lies."

It has been already clarified over and over that this deal will NOT transfer port security to ANYONE. The very same people who are doing it now will continue to do it. If you wanna bitch about the deal, find an honest argument.

 

[Avatar4321]

I heard that Bush said, "any attempt to block this would be vetoed". Well that's just peachy.

At this point, seeing that he wants to hand control of our port security over to a company with KNOWN TIES to TERRORISTS, (And the example pulit found is only one example. Hannity found some fifteen examples of this company's ties to terrorists.) and then include his PATHETIC, even TREASONOUS handling of illegal immigration, and I'd have to say I think Bush has turned into one stupid dissappointing sons a bitch. His damn term can't be up fast enough as far as I'm concerned.

With all due respect Pale, the port security wont be in the hands of the company. It will be in the hands of the coast guard and port authority.

Regardless, I really think this is a side issue to the real problem with the ports. The fact is the securty sucks period. Terrorists wouldn't have to buy their way into the port, they could get through as it is.

Remember, 911 didnt require them to purchase airports. In fact, since they are putting billions of dollars into the port deals I think its pretty good reason for them to keep operations legit because they could easily lose that money if they didn't.

With that said, I do think its wise to give this deal alittle more time. It seems like it was made hastly, but I dont think the knee jerk reactions against it are any better. Of course now that a few days have passed there are starting to be better articulated positions and less knee jerk reactions.

As for illegal immigration, i think what is keeping President Bush from becoming a great President is his inability to address the issue in a satisfactory way. Its a shame too. He has alot more potential then he is living up to.

 

[Annie]

With all due respect Pale, the port security wont be in the hands of the company. It will be in the hands of the coast guard and port authority.

Regardless, I really think this is a side issue to the real problem with the ports. The fact is the securty sucks period. Terrorists wouldn't have to buy their way into the port, they could get through as it is.

Remember, 911 didnt require them to purchase airports. In fact, since they are putting billions of dollars into the port deals I think its pretty good reason for them to keep operations legit because they could easily lose that money if they didn't.

With that said, I do think its wise to give this deal alittle more time. It seems like it was made hastly, but I dont think the knee jerk reactions against it are any better. Of course now that a few days have passed there are starting to be better articulated positions and less knee jerk reactions.

As for illegal immigration, i think what is keeping President Bush from becoming a great President is his inability to address the issue in a satisfactory way. Its a shame too. He has alot more potential then he is living up to.

Okay, a country willing to unleash WMD's would be concerned about the victim country's having their 'earnest money' on deposit. Damn, that's so cool.

 

[dilloduck]

Okay, a country willing to unleash WMD's would be concerned about the victim country's having their 'earnest money' on deposit. Damn, that's so cool.

The UAE is willing to unleash WMDs ? The UAE has to guard itself from terrorism and Al Qeada as we speak.

 

[Avatar4321]

Okay, a country willing to unleash WMD's would be concerned about the victim country's having their 'earnest money' on deposit. Damn, that's so cool.

What are you talking about?

 

[Annie]

What are you talking about?

I said that badly, but the UAE has been involved with moving some very tricky stuff, against our wishes even after 9/11, weaponry from Iran to Africa for one.

They have been the nexus of some nuclear parts coming to Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.

 

[007]

With all due respect Pale, the port security wont be in the hands of the company. It will be in the hands of the coast guard and port authority.

Regardless, I really think this is a side issue to the real problem with the ports. The fact is the securty sucks period. Terrorists wouldn't have to buy their way into the port, they could get through as it is.

Remember, 911 didnt require them to purchase airports. In fact, since they are putting billions of dollars into the port deals I think its pretty good reason for them to keep operations legit because they could easily lose that money if they didn't.

With that said, I do think its wise to give this deal alittle more time. It seems like it was made hastly, but I dont think the knee jerk reactions against it are any better. Of course now that a few days have passed there are starting to be better articulated positions and less knee jerk reactions.

As for illegal immigration, i think what is keeping President Bush from becoming a great President is his inability to address the issue in a satisfactory way. Its a shame too. He has alot more potential then he is living up to.

Here's the bigest thing about this deal that bugs me, we would make the UAE privy to some of our most secret security information "about" our ports. Now whether or not they actually put their own men here on the job, or the ones that are there now keep on, don't you think by giving them all this secret security information, it would make it EXCEDINGLY easy for them to circumvent it, if they ever wanted to?

You can't just say it's the ties to terrorism that one is basing their decision on. There's more to it than that. I for one still think it would be a major bad decision.

 

[007]

he wants to hand control of our port security over to a company with KNOWN TIES to TERRORISTS

Why do you insist on spreading lies?

Dillo, I'd like to see some proof that they're lies...

Here's a little bit of something in the meantime for you to chew on dillo...

U.S. Didn’t Target Bin Laden in 1999 Because He Was Meeting With UAE Royal Family

Dubai World Ports is controlled by the royal family of the United Arab Emirates. Atrios notes this morning that former CIA director Tenet told the 9/11 commission that the United States did not target Bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in February 1999 because he was meeting with the UAE royal family.

Here are some more details on the incident from the 9/11 commission. Here’s Tenet’s March 24, 2004 testimony:

MR. TENET:…The third complicating factor here is, you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I’m sure entered into everybody’s calculation in all this.

More details from the 9/11 Staff Report:

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.

Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke expressed concern about the UAE royal family’s relationship with Bin Laden:

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…

This information only underscores why the administration should have fully investigated the sale, as required by law, before approving it.

Filed under: Homeland Security
Posted by Judd February 22, 2006 11:06 am


Administration Failed To Conduct Legally Required Investigation Before Approving UAE Port Deal


In ordinary cases of 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.

The law, however, was amended in 1993. That amendment makes the 45-day investigation mandatory in cases like the Dubai World Ports transfer. From the CFIUS website:

The Dubai World Ports purchase triggers the automatic investigation. First, the company is “controlled” by a foreign government. Second, it’s undeniable that port operations “could affect the national security of the United States.”

Yet, the investigation never happened. Bush administration officials “could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.”

Filed under: Homeland Security
Posted by Judd February 22, 2006 9:48 am



http://thinkprogress.org/category/a-secure-america/

 

[dilloduck]

Dillo, I'd like to see some proof that they're lies...

Here's a little bit of something in the meantime for you to chew on dillo...

U.S. Didn’t Target Bin Laden in 1999 Because He Was Meeting With UAE Royal Family

Dubai World Ports is controlled by the royal family of the United Arab Emirates. Atrios notes this morning that former CIA director Tenet told the 9/11 commission that the United States did not target Bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in February 1999 because he was meeting with the UAE royal family.

Here are some more details on the incident from the 9/11 commission. Here’s Tenet’s March 24, 2004 testimony:

MR. TENET:…The third complicating factor here is, you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I’m sure entered into everybody’s calculation in all this.

More details from the 9/11 Staff Report:

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.

Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke expressed concern about the UAE royal family’s relationship with Bin Laden:

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…

This information only underscores why the administration should have fully investigated the sale, as required by law, before approving it.

Filed under: Homeland Security
Posted by Judd February 22, 2006 11:06 am


Administration Failed To Conduct Legally Required Investigation Before Approving UAE Port Deal


In ordinary cases of 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.

The law, however, was amended in 1993. That amendment makes the 45-day investigation mandatory in cases like the Dubai World Ports transfer. From the CFIUS website:

The Dubai World Ports purchase triggers the automatic investigation. First, the company is “controlled” by a foreign government. Second, it’s undeniable that port operations “could affect the national security of the United States.”

Yet, the investigation never happened. Bush administration officials “could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.”

Filed under: Homeland Security
Posted by Judd February 22, 2006 9:48 am



http://thinkprogress.org/category/a-secure-america/

The lie is that we are turning port security over to ANYONE. The investigation is going to be held and everyone will get thier shot at looking into it. You're going to hold the Bush administartion responsible for what Clinton lawyers refused to do?

 

[Gunny]

The US government is not going to Nationalize/buy the ports. The US gov't cannot compel a US company to bid on them. IIRC, a US company did NOT bid.

The money was ALREADY going to the UK. Now it's going to go to the UAE.

We sell out to China every day. Why's this different?

 

[007]

The lie is that we are turning port security over to ANYONE. The investigation is going to be held and everyone will get thier shot at looking into it. You're going to hold the Bush administartion responsible for what Clinton lawyers refused to do?

You keep repeating "lie" like a broken record, yet you completely ignored the fact I presented that the UAE will be made privy to crucial and sensitive American security information. You're saying that's a good thing? And what about what I posted? That's not a lie.

 

[dilloduck]

You keep repeating "lie" like a broken record, yet you completely ignored the fact I presented that the UAE will be made privy to crucial and sensitive American security information. You're saying that's a good thing? And what about what I posted? That's not a lie.

As long as people lie, I will continue to ignore what they say.

 

[007]

As long as people lie, I will continue to ignore what they say.

Oh... boy... that's a good one... :gross2:

Now you're talking like a liberal dillo.