3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 09:27 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Why can't there be a law forbidding foreign ownership--ANY foreign ownership, not just Arab ownership--of American port authorties?


Condemnation?

And why didn't the US - private, state or other officiial authorities get it before the foreigners got those ports .... like before P&O?


Who said anything about condemnation? The point is that looooooong ago, our leaders wisely decided that foreign ownership of American airways was not a good idea. So they passed a law that radio stations could not be foreign owned.

There has been no such law regarding American ports and the port authority for the five ports in question have been British owned for a very long time now. But then we had not had a 9/11 at the time nor any problem with Arab (or anybody else's) ownership of American stuff.

It's a new world now with different security concerns than we had before. And so the question is being raised.

In a rational world, it made sense to me for American industry to be placed in other countries and theirs here. The more we all owned each other there would be less incentive to make war with each other.

There is nothing rational about Islamofacist terrorism, however. Therefore, there are concerns now that didn't exist for us five years ago.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 09:28 am
oddly enough I don't see any problem with this turn of events. I wish the UAE great success in this venture. From what I know the port authorities have pretty much been mafia run for decades. This could be a great improvement.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 10:26 am
Quote:
Killer Cheney

By William F. Buckley

Feb 20, 2006

This commentator rations himself to only one prediction every 15 years. Mine now is that there is going to be a devastating backlash in the months and years ahead in the matter of Cheney and the quail shoot.

Some critics of the administration are arguing as if Iraq were a subsidiary concern. What has been brought forth in the plains of Texas is the venal character of the vice president of the United States.

One columnist for The New York Times headlined his column, "Mr. Vice President, It's Time to Go." Resign, "for the sake of the country and" -- one inhales the purity of the writer's motives -- "for the sake of the Bush administration."

Now that gentleman's concern for the well-being of the Bush administration is on the level of his concern for the quail that Mr. Cheney did or did not kill (this is the only detail of the event unexplored by the historians). Why did the critic want Cheney to resign? Because "Mr. Cheney is arrogant, defiant and sometimes blatantly vulgar." Oh? Yes -- the critic arrived with documentation in hand: "He once told Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) to perform a crude act upon himself." You do not say! Well, that's the kind of thing one would expect from somebody who goes about crippling his friends while ostensibly aiming only at quail.

It is to the credit of the newspaper of record that a few pages before the call for the resignation of Mr. Cheney, a careful reporter, Ralph Blumenthal, gave a detailed account of what had happened on Saturday at the Armstrong ranch.

Who all was there? Well, Pamela Pitzer Willeford, ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and her husband, a physician; the hostess, Katharine Armstrong, and her sister, and her husband. Also Nancy Negley, an art philanthropist; Ben Love, a West Texas rancher; and the victim, Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old lawyer, and his wife. Also several outriders, whose duty was to flush the birds. Also a dozen American pointers and Labrador retrievers. Close to 5:30 p.m., the two shooting groups had bagged about 40 quail each, and were working now on the last covey.

About 100 yards away from the Jeep carrying the hostess and her sister (daughters of the fabled Anne Armstrong, whom Gerald Ford had once asked to run for vice president), "Mr. Cheney, Mr. Whittington and Ms. Willeford were walking in a line in a low spot on gently sloping ground. After Mr. Whittington bagged his birds he dropped out of sight, along with one of Ms. Armstrong's bird dogs." (Her name -- not originally disclosed to the press -- is "Gertie.") "Then, suddenly, he was in a dip about 30 yards away against the sun just as Mr. Cheney fired a blast from his Italian-made 28-gauge Perazzi shotgun." That is when Mr. Whittington "caught the spray of birdshot on the right side of his face, neck and chest."

Mr. Cheney is recorded as having said, "Harry, I had no idea you were there!" The exclamation point is mine, and will offend only those who refuse to believe that Cheney was startled at finding that his friend stood in a line between him, Gertie and the setting sun.

We all know what then happened. But the only thing that then happened that seemed to catch national attention was that the party drove not to the nearest newspaper, but to the hospital.

An account was filed with a local newspaper, and the doleful news came from the hospital that one pellet had entered the heart of the victim. There is little doubt but that he will survive. Mr. Cheney has said that what blame there is, is Cheney's. That detail, by the way is also not fully explored -- conceivably the victim had failed to identify his position when moving forward from the firing line established by hunters moving in parallel.

We can't celebrate a backlash until Mr. W. is back home and well. But here is one observer who predicts that Mr. W. will chuckle over the misadventure, unless, after years of friendship with Mr. Cheney, he only now discovers that he is arrogant, defiant, and that he uses vulgar language.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 03:23 pm
I understand Bush has stated he'll veto any congressional effort to block the port deal. Does he know Jimmy Carter supports it and doesn't think it is a security issue? That's evidence enough that it ought to be blocked, IMO.

This is a bad deal. I understand not wanting to engage in "racial profiling" and all (I suppose), and I'm fully cognizant of the hypocrisy of the opportunistic Democrats here (I mean, do they or don't they oppose racial profiling?), but honestly, who is supportive of this -- besides Carter?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 03:27 pm
What does this have to do with racial profiling?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 03:29 pm
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/21/D8FTNQ400.html

""After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "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. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"



I understand what GW is trying to say and he is doing a good job of bringing out the hypocrites (aka Clinton, Frist et al).

However, strictly from a PR perspective, with all good intentions the Arab Company may have, the PEOPLE of the US will never EVER support this. Especially the PEOPLE of the State of NY and NJ!!

Most people (including me) did not realize a British Company had control of those ports. If we did, I doubt we would be concerned since we do not expect the Brits to be a security risk.

United ARAB Emerites is different. Most people will NEVER EVER support this. I know I can not support it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 03:30 pm
Can a law change something which has been dealt before and was legal at that time under US law?

And how would/could this effect (legally) the changing of an ownership from UK/Norwegian to United Arab Emirates shareholders?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 03:31 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
What does this have to do with racial profiling?

Cycloptichorn


Probably because the port deal is an issue because it now is the UAE investing rather than the Brits (where no security concerns were raised)...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 03:34 pm
The issue isn't that the UAE is full of Arabs per se, it's that they have a spotty track record with Terrorism; and that is the driving issue of the day.

Bush is going to take a pounding on this issue if he sticks with it; but he has to reward his cronies somehow, dontcha know?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 03:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The issue isn't that the UAE is full of Arabs per se, it's that they have a spotty track record with Terrorism; and that is the driving issue of the day.


Really? The UAE? I wasn't aware of that. Could you expand on that...?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 03:40 pm
Let me hunt up some links. Off the top of my head, I know that the UAE has had some connections to terrorist financing.

Interestingly enough, Rumsfeld said he wasn't aware of this deal until last weekend; yet he is a member of the committee on foreign investment - http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/ - who is supposed to have signed off on the deal.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 03:40 pm
Now let's see. We're not allowed to give Arab-looking people extra scrutiny at the airport or in the mall or in the Capital building, etc. because that would be racial profiling and therefore unacceptable to treat Arabs as being more risk than anybody else.

But we're supposed to give Arabs extra scrutiny when they buy rights to an American port because they present a greater risk.

Does anybody besides me see a discrepancy here?

So we have Lindsay Graham, Hillary Clinton, and Charles Schumer on one side protesting the sale and we have Dirty Harry, Jimmy Carter, and President Bush on the other side approving the sale.

Likewise today, Sean Hannity & company are rigorously opposing the sale; Rush Limbaugh spent a couple of hours with a string of facts of why it would be far less a problem than some suppose.

This may be the most bipartisan crisis of the decade. Smile
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 03:42 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Now let's see. We're not allowed to give Arab-looking people extra scrutiny at the airport or in the mall or in the Capital building, etc. because that would be racial profiling and therefore unacceptable to treat Arabs as being more risk than anybody else.

But we're supposed to give Arabs extra scrutiny when they buy rights to an American port because they present a greater risk.

Does anybody besides me see a discrepancy here?


<raises hand>
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 03:47 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Let me hunt up some links. Off the top of my head, I know that the UAE has had some connections to terrorist financing.


From the (2003, released 4/2004) Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism release Patterns of Global Terrorism - Middle East Overview:
Quote:
United Arab Emirates

In 2003, the United Arab Emirates continued to provide outstanding counterterrorism assistance and cooperation. The UAE Government publicly condemned acts of terrorism, including the attack in August against UN headquarters in Baghdad and the attack in November against a housing compound in Riyadh. In September, the UAE successfully hosted the annual International Monetary Fund/World Bank meetings, an event marked by close cooperation between the Dubai police and UAE armed forces.

In suppressing terrorist financing, the UAE Central Bank continued to aggressively enforce anti-money laundering regulations. Tightened oversight and reporting requirements for domestic financial markets resulted in a stronger legal and regulatory framework to deter abuse of the UAE financial system. The Central Bank has provided training programs to financial institutions on money laundering and terrorist financing.

It has also investigated financial transactions and frozen accounts in response to UN resolutions and internal investigations, as well as begun registering hawala dealers. The UAE has frozen the accounts of terrorist entities designated by the UN, and the US Government has provided the UAE with antiterrorism and anti-money laundering training, as well as technical assistance for bankers, prosecutors, judges, and police.

The UAE has provided assistance in several terrorist investigations. In early 2003, the UAE became a party to the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons.

The UAE is a party to eight of the 12 international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism
.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 03:52 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Can a law change something which has been dealt before and was legal at that time under US law?

And how would/could this effect (legally) the changing of an ownership from UK/Norwegian to United Arab Emirates shareholders?


Yes, Congress can pass any law at any time so long as it is not ruled unconstitutional. So far as I know any law related to the ports would be entirely constitutional as it would be constitutional for the President to veto the bill if he chooses to do so and for the Congress, with the appropriate majority, to override the President.

Since the United States owns the rights to NONE of its ports, nor does it have any role in the loading, unloading of ships or containers ANYWHERE else in the world besides here, to pass a law forbidding foreign ownership of the ports would tick off a lot of countries that do own rights to those ports and would leave us wide open for a lot of breach of contract lawsuits. So you're right that there is definitely an issue there, Walter.

Now if Rush had it right today, and I don't know if he did, it will still be Americans working at, regulating, and doing the day to day physical management of the ports as well as American customs, Coast Guard, etc. doing all the security. It isn't like all the American longshoremen will be booted out and the UAE transports Arab terrorists in to do those jobs.

I still think we need more information.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 04:00 pm
To me, this is the same as if we gave a Mexican company rights to patrol the southern boarders.

This is counter intuitive to a sound national defense plan. NO FOREIGN company should control the ports. There is an apparent conflict of interest here and it is to the disadvantage of the US.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 04:04 pm
I see that woiyo is on Hillary's side, too. This is fun!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 04:09 pm
The way I'm beginning to understand it though is that the UAE won't control the port. They will be a kind of landlord, but all the management and security will remain in the hands of Americans.

The thing is that ALL our ports--every single one of them--is non-American owned. The President is right. How can we say everybody else is okay but the UAE are not without royally ticking off some Arabs very friendly to the USA?

But I tend to agree that the ports should be American owned as well as American controlled.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 04:11 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Now if Rush had it right today, and I don't know if he did, it will still be Americans working at, regulating, and doing the day to day physical management of the ports as well as American customs, Coast Guard, etc. doing all the security. It isn't like all the American longshoremen will be booted out and the UAE transports Arab terrorists in to do those jobs.


I've never thought something even similar to that could happen ... or was it all British/Norwegian before?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 04:15 pm
I'm not sure Walter. I'm still not well educated on this whole subject. But I think some think the Arabs will come in with all Arab employees, etc. and can route terrorists through unnoticed that way. What I am reading and hearing today, however, is that it won't be that way and has never been that way with other foreign owners.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 01:38:06