Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's pretty stunning that none of the PR folks thought a deal of this magnitude, that required so much "due diligence" by several agencies, ever thought of letting the president know until it was a done deal.> It's quite likely the "PR folks" didn't know about this deal until after the President did. The bigger the bureaucracy, the more often inter-communication fails.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They may not be on an official list preventing US businesses from dealing with that nation, but there are more ties to UAE and 9/11 than there were with Iraq.> And yet the Clinton Administration praised the UAE throughout the 90's. Why was that? Is there any evidence that the UAE is supporting terrorism now?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I get a kick out of the uproar over the title I picked. I tried to put "Bush Administration" and a few other things, but they wouldn't fit.<< Since (as far as I know) I was the only one who commented specifically on the misleading title of this thread, I don't know whether to be flattered or annoyed that my post is considered an "uproar." My beef is that the thread title goes beyond misleading to being a lie. Bush is not putting Arabs in charge of port security. A private transaction that would give management of six US ports to a company controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates has been proposed. Bush isn't involved, anymore than he would be involved if RJR Nabisco sold their cookie division to a company in Japan. ("Bush to Hand Over Oreos to Japanese!") Furthermore, the deal is not to secure the ports in question. It is to manage them. Security is handled by US law enforcement agencies. All other requirements to run the ports remain in place. They cannot simply shut them down, or suddenly change the way things are moved in and out. There are specific requirements in any contract that protect the interests of the United States. (The management of most major US ports is presently handled by foreign companies.) That Bush was not aware of this transaction is not that stunning, inasmuch as he is not in charge of vetting the various business transactions that take place in the United States on a daily basis. (Parenthetically, I wonder how this jibes with claims that Bush has business ties to the companies involved...) As I have said before, I am personally opposed to foreign interests owning or managing American resources. Because we participate in a global economy, this is a reality, though. It is also good and healthy that transactions such as this are the subject of criticism and debate. But completely mischaracterizing it merely to score political points simply clouds the real issues at hand.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>That Bush was not aware of this transaction is not that stunning<< He's never been accused of "micro-managing," that's for sure. But it's best been described as "politically tone deaf" for Karl Rove or whoever is in charge of PR these days not to have anticipated raised eyebrows at trying to be so quiet about this deal. In the final analysis, this may be like the Cheney hunting accident -- an easily explainable and understandable event handled clumsily with unnecessary secrecy.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I certainly won't argue that Bush can be legitimately described as politically tone deaf. Maybe that's why he talks so funny.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Douglas ----Re: post 62,63, and 71---Some of your most brilliant yet basic and pithy stuff to date on this CRUCIAL topic. Again------IMO-----Either nuke em all or TRY to get along with the UAE, our BEST chance at extending an olive branch to ALL Arabs. We are going to be absolutely HATED even more in the Arab world if we turn our backs on the one place in the Arab world that has given us the most support.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Correct me if I'm wrong...but wasn't it an Arab (Prince Walid Ibn Talal...the 4th richest man in the world) who "saved" Euro Disney? In fact, I think he had investment interests in the US, Canada and Europe. If we start digging deep in to who "owns" what I think we all would be pretty startled. The bottom line here, the US would not be giving up Security protection of the ports...not that it matters anyway since we are doing a damn poor job all by ourselves.
Originally Posted By bboisvert I would submit that Jordan gives us quite a bit of support particularly in the realm of diplomacy. Much more so than UAE. To the idea that we will be hated even more by the Muslim community, it's hard to see that getting worse over this deal. They have lots of reasons to hate us outside of this issue. "Ocean's no longer protect us." Yep, you're right George.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>Okay, here’s a little more centrist option. I say we give the contract to the Titan corporation.<< Titan was bought by L-3 last year.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe BB--------It can get a LOT worse! There's billions of Arabs who are still undecided about how MUCH they hate us. We just see the lunatic fringe and that LF WILL become mainstream if we don't go along with this deal. 76-Wahoo---------I don't think people realize that we only inspect 3-5% now as it is of cargo coming in! Pretty scary huh?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "But apparently, there's enough to oppose it." How can anyone support a deal they know little to nothing about, especially one as sensitive as this. Common sense dictates this HAS to be opposed until the Administration comes forward with more details. In the long run it could turn out there isn't enough to stop this deal, but in the meantime, their penchant for secrecy has finally caught with them. And whoever approved this without Bush's knowledge needs to be publicly hung out to dry. It's unfathomable someone less than the President would approve Bush's okay. Unless of course it was Cheney, because he's running the show, anyway.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Is there any evidence that the UAE is supporting terrorism now?" Is there any evidence the child molester who was re-located to a mile of your kid's school is molesting someone as we speak? Fool me once.........
Originally Posted By gadzuux Something doesn't add up here. On the one hand we're told that bush didn't really know anything about this transaction until it was all completed. Yet on the other hand we have bush publicly challenging the congressional leadership with a veto when they question the wisdom of this deal. If bush wasn't involved and has no personal stake in this matter, why then is he taking such a determined and combative stance against those that are opposed?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Why are the operations and security of our ports being outsourced to begin with?< this is the bigger question, for the ports and a huge chuck of our jobs in this country period ! <If bush wasn't involved and has no personal stake in this matter, why then is he taking such a determined and combative stance against those that are opposed? < because if they truly are allies- would one as president want everyone bashing them ? If this was a British Company -- like BP that took over Amoco -- would this even be a topic ? btw -- I am not for outsourcing any jobs like this to anyone....
Originally Posted By cape cod joe 84-----------wahoo--Your post just took my breath away yearning for those "good old days"
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There's billions of Arabs who are still undecided about how MUCH they hate us.> Well, millions. I don't think the total population of Arabs is much more than a billion.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How can anyone support a deal they know little to nothing about, especially one as sensitive as this.> I know as much about this deal as I do about the Disney/Pixar deal, and I support it about the same as I did that one. The people who have looked at the UAE deal the most seem to support it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If bush wasn't involved and has no personal stake in this matter, why then is he taking such a determined and combative stance against those that are opposed?> I wouldn't categorize his stance as "determined and combative", but given that, I'd guess he's taken the stance because he's been fully briefed by those who made the decision.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <btw -- I am not for outsourcing any jobs like this to anyone....> My understanding is that the jobs are currently being performed by Americans under control of a British company, and if this deal is okayed, they will be performed by Americans under control of an UAE company.
