Bush ceding US ports to the enemy?

I'm sorry, where did I challenge your facts? Your facts were absolutely correct - Bush is dangerously out-of-touch and out of the loop in his own administration.What I didn't understand was why you think that constituted a defense.

DRIVEL.The Bush Administration DIDN't KNOW about the deal, didn't have anything to do with it, and they certaily din't waive any requirement for anything.If they did, please post a link and quote the source stating so. This debate forum still needs a little substantiation.

---

I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving across a bridge with Ted Kennedy.

Where do you get this stuff, Tal? Hannity? These statements are outright falsehoods.From the Associated Press:

quote:

---

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement
By TED BRIDIS (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
February 22, 2006 9:05 PM EST
WASHINGTON - 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.

​

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.

---

So, the administration are the ones who brokered the deal, they got to take a peek at some secret records, but we're just supposed to trust Bush that they won't do anything bad in the future, long after Bush himself is out of office, because Dubai Ports is essentially immune from prosecution in US courts.

Link your source please.

---

I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving across a bridge with Ted Kennedy.

See, that's not true. Control of a port is not something that two business can decide on their own. The government has to be in on it. The administration was indeed aware, and involved.

quote:

---

President George W. Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration

---

(Emphasis mine.)

quote:

---

"The president made sure to check with all the Cabinet secretaries that are part of this process, or whose agencies or departments are part of this process," the spokesman said. "He made sure to check with them -- even after this got more attention in the press, to make sure that they were comfortable with the decision that was made."

​

"And every one of the Cabinet secretaries expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction being approved," he said.

---

And all this aside, you're still ignoring the fact that now that he does know about it, Bush is heartily supporting the deal.

quote:

---

Bush has pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement

---

This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 02-23-2006 11:36 AM

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

I've already sourced the article, it's up there in the byline. Looking up AP articles isn't that hard. Try Google News.

I actually did not bring up the fact that a couple of the hijackers were from UAE. And I stated that I am not trying to make this an anti-Islamic type thing.The title of this thread, while hyperbolic, was supposed to be ironic. Given this administration's rhetoric, don't their actions regarding this deal seem highly contradictory and if it had been a dem suggesting it, wouldn't it have been played as giving in to the enemy?As it stands I think this deal is bad for this nation, regardless of if they were Islamic or not.All this said, I have to say I do not believe 911 was setup by Bush and I doubt he'd trying to create some new problem. If there is an issue here, it would probably be graft as you suggest. If that is true it is very troubling.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I agree Dan, I was just arguing with Crash about her/his/its first reply.I know Bush supports the deal now.

---

I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving across a bridge with Ted Kennedy.

i don't think it's necessarily bad for the country. i think they could go about it better. like requiring such things as would make them beholden to the american court system. but we all know what republicans neocons think of the courts.they'd rather have a lynching.

1. The Ports are already run by a foreign company.
2. If the US blocks the takeover based on security grounds they've just given carte blanc to any other country wishing to oppose a takeover by a US country to block it on spurious 'security grounds'.

As you saw, later in my post I tone things down a bit. I also agree with Jazzns that it is knee jerk to claim that bad things will certainly come. But this administration has used this before and regarding security issues like these, when they did not involve as questionable of entities as a theocratic state and as important a thing as a port.I was ironically using their own method to highlight their inconsistency. But to make clear I do feel it is a bad idea, and am making more concise arguments about that outside of my question of why the Bush administration and Reps would support such a deal. Okay, that claim makes no sense given the context. The gov't is essentially a hereditary theocracy. That means there is absolutely no independent oversight capability by anyone with regards to how the companies that gov't owns is run. What mechanism for accountability would there be? You misunderstood, the UAE has been cited for mistreating its employees and engaging in bad hiring practices, which would not be allowed for western nations. I wasn't discussing anything outside of the realm that they'd actually have control of regarding port management. The potential for problems to arise is greater with such a nationalized company. It will force us to increase our own security measures and thus cost us more. First of all they have people working in their own country. A person working in the US under control of a company from that country may have a glass ceiling or even an iron one.Second, there is no sense that they must abide by labor laws. The Bush administration has sought and if I remember correctly won the right to allow faith based groups to operate against US labor laws. Given that it is a theocratic state, I don't see why they could not be considered a faith based agency.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I think a general thing to point out about this obvious hypocricy is not just that it is true but that it is out there wide open for everyone to see. There isn't even an attempt to do anything more than claim consistency and focus within this administration. The first thing that this reminds me of when I think about it is the behavior of many of the creationists on this board who just declare their position as true. The administration just declares itself as consistent despite the clear fact that they are first of liars and second totally inept beyond comparison.The more I understand about this deal though the more scary it is beginning to look starting off with the info crash linked to from the AP report. Why the heck are they getting special treatment regarding keeping records on US soil? That DOES make me very skeptical.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

You know, if this country (UAE) represents such a HUGE security risk and it is so detrimental to US interestes, you guys would have no objection to the Military going in and taking care of business in the UAE right?

I didn't say anything about the UAE. If you had actually read my previous post you would have noticed that I spoke out against a knee jerk reaction to this on the grounds of the country being in the middle east.That still does not excuse the incompetence of the government. They are blatantly inept and seemingly don't even care enough about what might be important to the American people to bother to tell us about it.Why did whoever in the administration not think this issue might raise a controversy?Why is the new company given privelidges that others do not regarding the storage of documents that my later fall under jurisdiction of a US court order?It has nothing to do with the fact that the company is from the UAE. It has to do with the treatement of the issue by the administration and their fumbling of responsibility to deal with issues that are certain to raise criticisms rather than having them be a suprise to their constituency. And please don't say that , "they didn't know" because all that does it make the situation worse.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Just because I wouldn't trust a guy with the keys to my house doesn't mean I need to go over to his house with a gun and put one in his forhead.But I guess the idea that there's a differential scale of threat didn't occur to you. Either we drop our drawers for somebody or we take 'em out. How simple it is in the world of the Republican.