THE PORT DEAL - THIS COULD BE BUSH'S FIRST VETO? HE'S JOKING, RIGHT?

Nealz Nuze ^ | 22 February 2006 | Neal Boortz

[Ian McGreggor]

(17) - "The worst thing about this whole fiasco is that President George W. Bush has just thrown FIVE years of his tough on terror reputation down the toilet."

Five years would include 9/11. It would also include 4.5 years of completely open borders in which 7,000,000-10,000,000 people (illegals, drug dealers, felons, terrorists, who knows) have snuck into the US... Sorry, but I cannot see that Bush has been interested in protecting America. And this port deal just bears that out.

[sittnick]

Sounds like huge knee jerk and selective outrage over this whole deal.

Neither. I was against the Red Chinese running ports and getting U.S. Technology for decades. But I get more worked up about other stuff. If I had to choose between the UAE/Dubai and the Red Chinese, I'll take the Arabs. If I can have neither, I'd go with neither and cross off something on the "To Do" list.

Now what to do about the Chicoms running the Panama Canal, and that nutbar Chavez . . .

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[SquirrelKing]

Here's a fact:

[ncphinsfan]

"Rush has a brilliant analysis."

Rush is playing the Bush parrot on this one.

[TXBSAFH]

GW is a globalist, he has no interest in protecting borders.

[trubluolyguy]

No Neal he's not joking. And he really believes that "Religion of peace" B.S. he keeps spewing.

[mnehring]

Would you rather trust Bush, Rice, Cheney or the MSM's view?

[TomGuy]

Nope. No 'conflict of interest' here. Move along! (Google 'John Snow UAE Ports' and select the topmost link to USAToday article)

Nor here:

DP WORLD EXECUTIVE NOMINATED FOR PRESITIGOUS US GOVT POSITION (Dubai Ports World)
	Posted by hedgetrimmer On News/Activism 02/19/2006 2:33:10 PM CST · 147 replies · 1,321+ views Dubai Ports World ^ | 24 January 2006 | Tom Mollo Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.
[Eyes closed tightly] Nope, don't see any cronyism at all.

[mnehring]

Dave Sanborn, that doesn't sound very Islamic.. maybe we have a vested interest in this company and it isn't as bound to the Islamic world as we've been led to believe.

[ncphinsfan]

"Would you rather trust Bush, Rice, Cheney or the MSM's view?"

I voted for President Bush twice. The first time I voted for him was because he wasn't Algore. The second time I voted for him was because he wasn't John Kerry.

[bordergal]

Yep, let's give these folks our port security. They're our FRIENDS......

The US called off a strike against Osama Bin Laden because members of the UAE royal family were visiting him in Afghanistan.

UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours

March 25, 2004 12:04 IST

The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

The 10-member bipartisan commission is investigating the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm

[TomGuy]

Dave Sanborn, that doesn't sound very Islamic..

Neither is the real name of Jihad Johnny Taliban of Marin County, California.

[mnehring]

Your story actually raised an interesting question.. Considering all the other false information surrounding this story, I decided to check to see if DP World was actually run by the UAE. Check this out:

http://www.dpiterminals.com/members.asp?MCatID=3&PageID=10&SubPageID=4&PSID=1

Only 2 members of their BOD are UAE nationals. The rest are Americans, British, Norwegian, and Indian.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

They are all run by the CFR, so none of the above.

[RedStateRocker]

My concern is this:
2) The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, reviewed the transaction and did not object."

Why the hell is the foreign takeover of a strategic asset even considered? The only answer to any foreign ownership of anything that could be considered a strategic asset should be "are you out of your mind?"

[TomGuy]

it isn't as bound to the Islamic world as we've been led to believe.

As I understand it, the parent company is OWNED by the UAE -- it is a UAE-government owned operation. It is not a private company.

[AGreatPer]

Posts #78 and #90 are two of the best I have seen on this subject. Bravo!!!

[GAB-1955]

Chinese companies own terminals in California. If the Coast Guard Captain of the Port wants into these terminals, he sends an armed party over to investigate them. If someone tries to interfere with an armed party, they get arrested. That's why this is not a big deal.