Posted on 02/22/2006 8:31:23 AM PST by Kaslin
So therefore, the 45 day review needed to be within the 90 day timeframe. Failing to perform the review within the 90 days does not negate the requirement to perform it. You are putting the cart in front of the horse here (surprise).
You're completely lost in your own spin. Try again. A 30-day review is mandated; an extended 45-day review (aka investigation) is not mandated unless two specific criteria are met.
And those were met. You were trying to claim that, because the 45-day review was not done within 90 days, that obviated the need to do such.
So you're the one spinning here (surprise again).
The heroin doesn't come from Dubai.
It comes through Dubai.
A simple web search will show you that.
They're famous for it.
Really? Then you should have no problem producing my post saying such a thing.
I was saying of the two bullets shown in the statute and provided up above by jimbo, only one of those had been met.
As I said earlier, you're having a great deal of difficulty keeping up with the most basic of things on this thread (like who posted what). But I admire your perseverance. You keep dragging yourself right back up after getting kicked to the ground.
Hey... dirtboy! Now I get it!!
And the two criteria are:
o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and
o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
Sounds like the two criteria were clearly met to me.
Now about that post of mine you were going to produce??
Your post #183:
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.
Darn, that's inconvenient to your argument!
Which was in response to my post to wideawake that a 45-day review was required.
Of course, you'll spin that away like you've done throughout this thread.
I just did. You are a real piece of work, Coop. Not only was there that post, but you also further defended that "logic" in post #260.
Keep up the personal attacks, that's all you've got left.
Hardly. No sane person believes that.
You implied that the US regularly receives containers of smuggled heroin shipped via Dubai.
I haven't heard of such a link.
BTW - is there any major world port that the CIA believes not to be a drug transshipment point?
New York? Hamburg? Vancouver? London? Marseilles? Hong Kong? Sydney?
What about one of the 95% of containers that don't go through any inspection and have something destructive inside which is unloaded at the destination point (not the port but the receiver).
Your question is unclear. Please explain in more detail.
Which it's not. It's a 30-day requirement. The 90-day period was not brought up by me. You may call it spin if you like. Lord knows you need some kind of excuse for your rather abysmal performance on this thread.
Awwwww, is that a personal attack? Waaaaaagggghhhhhh!!!!! Oh moderators, dirtboy is being mean to me!!! [sob!]
"People like you will take care of that."
You j@rk. Have you glanced at the poll on the sidebar? MOST here on FR do not aprove of this sellout.
No kidding. And most on FR haven't a frickin' clue about the details of this non-event.
But it's President Bush's fault, don'tchaknow?!?
Once again, you did just that on post #183.
You explained that a body would not withstand the heat in a container even in a single day and I was responding to that in my post. I'm not concerned about a suicide bomber being inside a container, but materials in several containers that, combined, would product a deadly weapon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.