White House: Bush Didn't Know About Port Deal

FNC ^ | February 22, 2006

[Rutles4Ever]

The UAE airliners fly in and out of our airports everyday! Couldn't they just as easily be infiltrated and fly into buildings instead?

It would be much easier if the owned United Airlies though, wouldn't it?

[voteconstitutionparty]

"There are two things we should be concerned about, in my opinion: dangerous individuals and small but deadly packages."

You left out shipping containers full of heroin.

Dubai is listed by the CIA as a place that does that.

[Coop]

Here's more of me throwing flames...

The Exon-Florio statute established a 30-day review following receipt of a notification. For those transactions for which an extended 45-day review (or "investigation") is completed, a report must be provided to the President, who must by law announce the final decision within 15 days. In total, the process can not exceed 90 days.

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

Darn, that's inconvenient to your argument!

[Rutles4Ever]

owned United Airlines...

[bonfire]

Oh please, cut the drama queen act.

[FourtySeven]

Hardly any Nervous Nellies have shown up there. Wonder why? LOL

Coming from a nervous nellie right here, I'm glad that article was posted.

As I stated on that thread, although it seems increasingly clear (at least to me) that this deal isn't a threat to national security, from a political standpoint alone, the President should have been briefed about this. Surely he should have known that this would be an explosive issue, one that would make it difficult for even his most ardent supporters to defend him.

He can't be expected to know every tiny detail about his administration, but as I said on that thread, this isn't a "tiny detail". Bush dropped the ball on this. It's that simple. Thankfully, the facts are on his side (as usual) but these kind of missteps make it difficult to support him against an ignorant public.

[FreedomPoster]

Good one. I think I'll use that shortly, elsewhere.

[jimbo123]

This transaction is subject to a mandatory 45 day review BY LAQ because of the national security implications.

The 45-day review DID NOT take place and apparently the companies involved were assured by the U.S. that the 45-day review would not take place.

[bayourant]

Interesting comment from a UAE blogger here
"Guns to Iraq: How UAE Petrodollars will Save American Lives

The Iraqi Army is currently being engaged more and more in the front lines against the terrorists of Al Qaeda. For this role, it needs a varying number of specialized vehicles in order to reduce casualties and be able to bring in some heavy armor against lightly equipped Terrorists.

The USA has helped Iraq with a few Armored Vehicles of the V-150 Class. The UAEs assistance package to Iraq however has been the biggest of any countrys in terms of equipment.

The UAE Has Donated or Purchased for Iraq

180 M113A3 Armored Vehicles. Resulting in a row with Switzerland over their purchase and donation to Iraq.
44 Panhard M3 APCs
Comp Air 7sl Aircraft
Bell Ranger Helicopters
The UAE also helped rebuild the Iraqi Navy. It gave to the Iraqis at no cost, 24 FAB Fast Attack Boats.

The UAE also helps train not only Iraqi Army Personell. We also train Iraqi police forces in our country.

The faster the Iraqis can depend on themselves for internal security, the faster the Americans can complete their mission in Iraq, and the more lives they will save, Iraqi and American, if the Iraqis are well equipped enough to take over.

But thats not all...

Of course the UAE does not send only guns to the Iraqis, it also helps them in other equally important ways.

The UAE Red Crescent is Actively Engaged In Iraq.

Reading more...

The urgent relief operations carried out by the RCS alone cost the UAE Dh100 million. A total of 22 planes, 48 trucks and two ships were used to deliver the relief materials. Sheikh Zayed called on politicians, dignitaries and religious clerics in Iraq to close ranks bury the hatchet and look forward to reaching a better future for their country. The UAE went even further in supporting Iraq. In the donor countries' conference in Madrid in October 2003, the UAE announced it would contribute 215 million for the reconstruction of Iraq. Sheikh Khalifa, later, said his country would continue standing by the people of Iraq and would spare no effort to rehabilitate their country, adding that the UAE would consider writing off most of its debts to Iraq. In a statement last December, President H.H Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan voiced the hope that stability and security would be restored in Iraq and that the UAE would stand side by side the Iraqi people with all its resources.

Maybe the US senators should take this into consideration before they lambast the UAE for being a country with banks and hotels ?

http://aethoughts.blogspot.com/

[PrinceOfCups]

YOU WROTE: Why are the radical Islamists NOT giving grief to the UAE? They are killing and rioting in all countries which support freedom and liberty. Why not your country?

First: I'm a Red,White & Blue Yankee---and proud of it. We don't have rioters here because everyone is making Big $$$ and enjoying the good life. As I've said over and over: Terror is bad for business. That's your answer in a capitalist world. Greed works.


YOU WROTE: I rest my point that our good relationship with the UAE cannot be guaranteed in the long run.

What can be guaranteed in the long run. We fought the British twice. We fought the Germans twice. We fought the Spanish. The one constant is change; however, fearing change never gives you the opportunity to mold the future.

YOUR WROTE: I might not have first-hand experience of living in the UAE like you do, but I have the common sense to know that 9-11 is a warning that the United States has enemies.

You are absolutely correct. But let's focus on the the real threats, e.g. Iran, Al Queda, etc. Dubai are the Good Guys.

YOU WROTE: Only time will tell where the UAE will stand -- either for the U.S. or against the U.S.

I'm in the security business; the UAE is spending hundreds of millions of $$$ to develop tight security---as is Kuwait, Qatar and---with less bucks---Oman. These guys are my customers. I know.

YOU WROTE: And I don't think that while this question is up in the air, we should allow a company controlled by the UAE to operate our ports.

They will NOT manage the security of the ports. These guys are Board of Directors guys just looking for profits. We taught them capitalism. They are just playing the game.

There are no sure bets in this crazy world. But the UAE is at least a sound bet with the potential for good returns.

[Cate]

I have a favorite cartoon taped to my computer - the caption is:
BUSINESS LESSON NO. 1 : THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.
Its a true lesson :)

[Coop]

At the very least, our President owes the citizens an EXPLANATION of why our ports cannot be operated and managed by United States interests.

He already gave a comprehensive answer on this port deal. How come you're apparently not aware of that? It was in the news.

And yet you expect Dubya to know every detail that transpired within the U.S. government?

[DC Ripper]

>>In other words, you admit that you either forgot or never even knew about the etiology of the anthrax scare.<<

I did no such thing. We are talking about ports and you bring up the postmaster of Akron. Simply idiotic.

[Coop]

It's the law.

Nope

[bonfire]

Love that! Going to hang that on my mirror.

[sarasota]

Thanks.

[sarasota]

Perhaps sarcasm is keeping the debate from becoming rational.

[Walkingfeather]

Oh but he is.....Live long and prosper..... time for homeschool. Chat with you later... : )

[DCPatriot]

Right now I feel the same way I did when Nixon became culpable for Watergate.

Well, you'd better go and hide all your razors.

BTW, did you know that this story is older than Cheney's accidental shooting? Where did that one go?

The MSM dictate what is news and what's not.