More on Port Deal

[ctownguy]

gw is absolutely correct.

democrats want it both ways politically so they can try and bring down this administration and they get neither, just hurting themselves. It's hilarious.

Be that has it may, I have been looking for more info on this and incidentally there are starting to be more senators and congressman backing off maybe too strong of a expression, they are definitely softening their rhetoric a little more on this deal as more facts about it are made public.

First, all ports in US are owned by foreign co. A Singapore co owns ports here in SoCal.

The deal on the table is for the terminal only so lets say in NY and NJ there is only one terminal involved. The US will still have the say who is working by even more stringent security tests than before for the British co that is selling to UAE.

Also one of the Big reasons UAE is buying out the British co, they are the only world wide co equipped to handle this that was willing to take on the unions at the various ports.

There are so many foreign co operating in the US that if it was known who and what they are it would make everyone uneasy, but that's what we get with such a GLOBAL ECONOMY.

And I know this is unpopular but UAE is an ally and for all you libs that were complaining about racial profiling just a few months (yrs) ago what's the problem.

For the deal to go through Bush is making this co jumps through hopes security wise or it won't go through.

AND THE BASIC COMMON SENSE THINKING IS BUSH IS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO JEOPARDIZE THE SECURITY OF THIS COUNTRY, HELL HIS WHOLE 2 ADMINISTRATIONS AND LEGACY IS BASED ON FIGHTING TERRORISM NOT INVITING IT IN.

And please don't show your ignorance and start popping off about lining his pockets, get real

 

[Chadman]

For the deal to go through Bush is making this co jumps through hopes security wise or it won't go through.

AND THE BASIC COMMON SENSE THINKING IS BUSH IS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO JEOPARDIZE THE SECURITY OF THIS COUNTRY, HELL HIS WHOLE 2 ADMINISTRATIONS AND LEGACY IS BASED ON FIGHTING TERRORISM NOT INVITING IT IN.

And please don't show your ignorance and start popping off about lining his pockets, get real

I think (for once) your points posted on this were in good due diligence and good to think about. Until you get to the last part highlighted above.

First of all, Bush didn't even KNOW about this deal, according to what spokespeople want us to believe, so to say he has them jumping through hoops security-wise is ridiculous. Since your saying that liberals can't have it both ways, I can easily call you out on that one. This was approved by a little known, recently formed (4 months) governmental group that had nothing to do with Bush in "hoop jumping."

As for lining pockets, this one probably is not a Bush-related score. I think John Snow is the happy camper when it comes down to lining his pockets. Of course, he was appointed BY Bush and Co., so there is that constant that we keep coming back to.

You should have stopped with your fact finding and posting and not added the editorial and biased gauntlet-toss. You came dangerously close to grabbing some credibility before you went on tilt.

 

[ctownguy]

You should have stopped with your fact finding and posting and not added the editorial and biased gauntlet-toss. You came dangerously close to grabbing some credibility before you went on tilt.

No fun in that, what would you libs have to rant about.

And yes, there was time for Bush to make those statements and let all concerned know about the extra security measures, that is what decision he made to let the deal have his approval and he as I understand made it very clear to those concerned that the more stringent security parameters were a must and UAE company agreed.

 

[Chadman]

So, you are suggesting that Bush and his administration were heavily involved in the process AFTER the deal was made, and that is enough for you? Perhaps Donald Rumsfeld would have been a key player in making sure "more stringent security paraments were a must" since he sits on the board of the Committee for Foreign Investment and has a "keen interest" in protecting our security issues as the current Secretary of Defense? Is this the guy that Bush was reassured by?
------------------------------------

from Media Matters: Reports on Bush administration review of UAE port deal failed to mention Rumsfeld "just heard about this over the weekend"

Summary: In detailing the evaluation process the Bush administration purportedly undertook before agreeing to permit a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to manage port terminals in six major U.S. cities, several media outlets reported that the administration approved of the deal only after a thorough review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). But none of the reports noted the glaring inconsistency in the administration's account: that Donald Rumsfeld, a key member of CFIUS, acknowledged in a February 21 press conference that he possessed "minimal information" about the deal because he had "just heard about this over the weekend."
----------------------

Was this before or after Bush was sure of the extra security issues? :mj03:

 

[Chadman]

And here is a differing view to your assessment to UAE "agreeing" to everything we asked...from a liberal blogger, admitted, but he makes a good set of points:

Looking at the "secret agreement" the White House seems to have leaked this afternoon, here's one point that sort of stands out.

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.

The failure to require the company to keep business records on US soil sounds like a pretty open invitation to flout US law as near as I can tell. Forget terrorism. This is the sort of innovative business arrangement I would think a number of Bush-affiliated American companies might want to get in on. Perhaps Halliburton could be domiciled in Houston, pay its taxes in Bermuda, do its business in Iraq and keep its business records in Jordan.

In the rest of the 'secret agreement' you can see other reasons why -- in addition to trade secret regs -- they chose to keep this pitiful deal a secret.

Read this ...

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

That paragraph is a beaut for the White House. "All reasonable steps" seems like a rather tepid standard of compliance with the Department of Homeland Security, doesn't it? And didn't we figure they'd want to help out regardless? Also, didn't we figure they'd keep helping out trying to prevent loose nukes from coming into the country? Did we just want to be sure?


More pointedly for the White House, the 'secret agreement' seems to have included a series of pledges, albeit rather feeble ones, of cooperation with security and counter-terrorism measures.


See the problem here? They aren't just hoisted on their own petard here; the petard is engaging them in an unnatural act, presumably pre-detonation. The White House's whole premise seems to be that the DPW just isn't involved in the security side of port management. Since that's the case, the whole security argument is bogus.

But if they need to pledge to cooperate and assist with security and counter-terrorism then clearly they are involved in port security.

 

[shamrock]

ACTUALLY CHAD, his post makes absolutely 0 sense, last I knew Singapore never committed terrorism against this country. Didn't fly anycraft into buildings. We had the perfect opportunity to kill obl in 1999, but couldn't hit his Afghanistan terror camp, WHY?? BECAUSE THE ROYALS & PRINCIPLES OF THE UAE WERE IN HIS TERROR CAMPS HOLDING SECRET MEETINGS. JUST THE PEOPLE YOU WANT RUNNING YOUR PORTS. IF YOU BELIEVE BUSH, HE KNOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THIS ANYWAY COMPLETE ASLEEP AT THE DAM WHEEL.

NO BUCK STOPS HERE WITH BUSH, HE IS TO BUSY SLEEPING.

 

[THE KOD]

What no one is even asking is how much money does UAE stand to make from owning and running these 6 ports ?

Eventually billions probably.

Lets face it . Follow the money.

And who will get their pockets fleeced again and again with port money. yep same old same old cronies.

This lobby money , campaign money crap never ends. Makes me wish I was in politics. I think I would have to steal and fraud everything I could just to fit in up there in washington.

 

[StevieD]

Another thing, this ain't a company we are talking about it is a country. A country who will not open it's books to us.

 

[shamrock]

Scott, with all due respect, forget about money, they slip a dirty bomb into a few containers, most of us will be killed.

 

[Chadman]

I heard this afternoon that the UAE does not have an extradition agreement with the US. So, evidently they are not THAT comfortable in working with us to bring people to justice in some matters. I have not verified that, just heard someone who had looked into it.

Sometimes it's the little things that say a lot.