southsider2k5 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 And in the same breath, Bill Frist is being quoted as sahing he is prepared to take action to delay the Ports deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 10:32 AM) Jimmy Carter is siding with GWB on this one... http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/...miherald_nation That should be a sign for GWB that this is the wrong decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 Now This certainly inspires my confidence in this deal. Donald Rumsfeld, in a press briefing today: QUESTION: Are you confident that any problems with security — from what you know, are you confident that any problems with security would not be greater with a UAE company running this than an American company? RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have because I just heard about this over the weekend. If Rummy is not lying here, not only is it disturbing that they didn't bother talking to the SecDef about this...but it's also worth noting that the SecDef sits on the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which unanimously approved the deal. So in other words, he voted for it without knowing about it. I'm confused. Bush is reportedly threatening to use the first veto of his administration on any bill which would block the sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 "I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue," Bush told reproters after an unusual decision to call media aboard Air Force One to the airplane's conference room. What did this decision consist of--asking the Dubai company if they could withhold vital security secrets, and in turn, UAE officials replying, "Yes, don't worry about it"? I believe it's obvious when the Senate majority leader voices opposition to the deal there's a few problems. I wonder whether or not Congress could collect the 2/3 needed to override Bush's veto. If it comes to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 03:30 PM) What did this decision consist of--asking the Dubai company if they could withhold vital security secrets, and in turn, UAE officials replying, "Yes, don't worry about it"? I believe it's obvious when the Senate majority leader voices opposition to the deal there's a few problems. I wonder whether or not Congress could collect the 2/3 needed to override Bush's veto. If it comes to that. I think they can get the 2/3s vote. This should polarize them to drop the bipartisanship for a moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 01:32 PM) I think they can get the 2/3s vote. This should polarize them to drop the bipartisanship for a moment. I think the Democrats would happily vote in unity to help overturn Bush's first veto of his term, just a question of how many Republicans the Bush Administration could peel off. It'll never come to that...if Bush doesn't want that bill going through Congress...he'll get it stopped beforehand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I think it will never come to a vote. And I think Bush peels off 35 GOP anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 So has anyone yet come up with an idea of why exactly it is Bush seems so adamant about this deal going forward, when it certainly doesn't pass the "does this smell right" test if nothing else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mplssoxfan Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 04:19 PM) So has anyone yet come up with an idea of why exactly it is Bush seems so adamant about this deal going forward, when it certainly doesn't pass the "does this smell right" test if nothing else? Because he can't admit to a mistake? Because he doesn't want to show weakness? Because he won't tell us the full story, including any backroom dealings with the Emirs? Because he's still not sure who killed Arthur Gwynn Geiger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 What happened to Bush's hard stance on nations who are either "with us or against us"? The UAE worked closely with the Taliban, a known terrorist harboring institution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 05:30 PM) Because he can't admit to a mistake? Because he doesn't want to show weakness? Because he won't tell us the full story, including any backroom dealings with the Emirs? Because he's still not sure who killed Arthur Gwynn Geiger? My guess is because the regulatory decision never came to his desk. His people thought it was fine and he trusts his people's judgment. That's why they're his people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minors Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) Since our president says it is a good idea then I have no problem with it he seems to be strongly in favor of it so he must know what he is doing. Edited February 21, 2006 by minors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 George Bush made a good point on this fight today. I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company," Bush said. "I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly. That sounds right Democrat of him actually But the point he's neglecting to acknowledge is that this company is owned by a state that sponsored terrorism. So even though I think he's still wrong - if this is his premise for defending the deal, I think its a pretty noble one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(minors @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 05:54 PM) Since our president says it is a good idea then I have no problem with it he seems to be strongly in favor of it so he must know what he is doing. Well you are in the minority buddy. Just saw The Caffeirty Files on CNN. He received thousands of emails about this and he said he could count on 1 hand the number of people supporting the president on this one. Wonder how supportive you'd be if you lived near one of these ports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 02:57 PM) George Bush made a good point on this fight today. That sounds right Democrat of him actually But the point he's neglecting to acknowledge is that this company is owned by a state that sponsored terrorism. So even though I think he's still wrong - if this is his premise for defending the deal, I think its a pretty noble one. Which is why I can't possibly imagine how that's his only premise for defending the deal. Where was he when CNOOC tried to buy Unocal and was forced to drop the bid after U.S. legislators threatened to block it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minors Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Well you are in the minority buddy. Just saw The Caffeirty Files on CNN. He received thousands of emails about this and he said he could count on 1 hand the number of people supporting the president on this one. Wonder how supportive you'd be if you lived near one of these ports. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't believe he would purposely place us in harms way I think we need to look at this proposal a little more before passing judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(minors @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 06:00 PM) I don't believe he would purposely place us in harms way I think we need to look at this proposal a little more before passing judgement. I don't see why any foreigners would get control of part of our infrastructure on our soil. Especially someone who supported the taliban. Makes zero sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 06:00 PM) Which is why I can't possibly imagine how that's his only premise for defending the deal. Where was he when CNOOC tried to buy Unocal and was forced to drop the bid after U.S. legislators threatened to block it? The reason that got dropped was because CNOOC was partially state controlled IIRC. So it stands to reason a state owned company would have the same worries and concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 If this deal goes through and God forbid something terrible happened because of it, you will see a bloody coup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 No you won't. Someone else will get blamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 06:06 PM) No you won't. Someone else will get blamed. Probably Bill Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minors Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I don't see why any foreigners would get control of part of our infrastructure on our soil. Especially someone who supported the taliban. Makes zero sense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah I don't understand it either but hopefully we learn a little more about it in the next days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(minors @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 03:00 PM) I don't believe he would purposely place us in harms way I think we need to look at this proposal a little more before passing judgement. Which is why I asked if anyone could give me a good, valid reason for why he's so vehement in defending this deal? It sure looks like it would weaken security. I mean, for example, according to Congress, that company's ports have been involved in illegal shipments of nuclear materials to countries like Iran, North Korea, and Lybia...and the ports they would be taking over have shipped roughly 40% of the U.S. materials involved in the Iraq war (ports of ew York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia) And, according to press reports... In Washington, Chertoff said DP World should not be excluded from operating the U.S. ports just because it is based in the UAE. DP World would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator would handle security for cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel. So the company would even have some significant security related duties at the ports. I can't see any good logic thus far which would tell me why the President responded to the concern with a veto threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Any scientific polls done on this with the American public? I would imagine a rating in the low teens for approving this deal to go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 03:02 PM) The reason that got dropped was because CNOOC was partially state controlled IIRC. So it stands to reason a state owned company would have the same worries and concerns. Just to make sure...you do know that this UAE company is at least partly state controlled? The CEO of that company seems to work directly for the crown prince in that country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts