White House: Bush Didn't Know About Port Deal

FNC ^ | February 22, 2006

[Kaslin]

WASHINGTON — President Bush was unaware that a controversial deal to sell shipping operations at six major U.S. seaportsto a United Arab Emirates-owned firm was in the works until it was approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

After Bush repeatedly

[Coop]

Nope. The 90-day period was in the reference I provided, sure, but I did not (as you are so desperately attempting to claim - gosh, should I report you to the moderators for lying?? Naaaahhh) bring up the 90-day period in relation to whether or not a 45-day review was mandated. You do know what those little italicky things mean, right? And since I went to the trouble of bolding one section and underlining another, seems kinda silly that I did not highlight the 90-day reference you insist I was embracing.

If this were a prizefight it would have been stopped four rounds ago. Maybe earlier with you complaining to the "referee" all the time.

[Cap Huff]

There is a weird similarity between this port operations affair and the recent cartoon explosion. Last weekend I learned through an acquaintance who works for the world’s biggest cargo carrier, Maersk — a Danish company (!) that in one mideast country there was a peculiar reaction to the cartoon story. At the outset there was a big hullabaloo in that country about boycotting Danish companies --- you know, no more Danish butter, cheese and beer. No problem, or so everyone assumed.

Then someone pointed out that something like 30-40% of imports and exports are handled by the Danish shipping company. Whoa! Now what? Some thought they could simply shift business to another shipper, but then they found out that there is a severe shortage of shipping capacity in the world market. In other words, stop using the Danish company, and you've effectively cut your own exports and imports by about 40%. Their economy could hardly afford that. Real pain. Not just giving up some Lurpac butter and an occasional Carlsberg brew (surprising how many Muslims do drink). From what I understand the “boycott everything Danish” ended up being everything except the most significant commercial enterprise which is the shipping.

There are differences between the cartoons and the ports, but this much is similar: reacting emotionally before the facts are known may be initially satisfying, but MAY be silly in the long run.

When I first heard about the port story I initially reacted with the idea, “how could anyone be so foolish?” — but as I learn more and more I find that most of what I thought I knew, just isn’t so.

I’m not yet fully convinced that the deal is without any security risks at all, but I’m not in a position where I can know that independently. I’m going to weigh the information as it becomes known, and try to use some reason and logic to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Perhaps most Freepers do not approve of this deal, but that is not the same as saying that most Freepers have come to an informed opinion on the deal and disapprove of it.

[dirtboy]

Nope. The 90-day period was in the reference I provided, sure, but I did not (as you are so desperately attempting to claim - gosh, should I report you to the moderators for lying?? Naaaahhh) bring up the 90-day period in relation to whether or not a 45-day review was mandated. You do know what those little italicky things mean, right? And since I went to the trouble of bolding one section and underlining another, seems kinda silly that I did not highlight the 90-day reference you insist I was embracing.

Sorry, but your post referenced the 30 days AND the investigation, which meant the 30 day aspect had no meaning by itself. You raised the 90 day issue. And now you are spinning it away and engaging in more personal attacks.

[Coop]

Interesting post, thanks.

occasional Carlsberg brew

A fine, refreshing beverage. I've been on the brewery tour, including the complimentary drink at the end. Nearly provoked an international incident when I tried to get seconds! :-D

[wideawake]

Fair enough. But in order to hide multiple compnent in multiple containers you would need to have a pretty good multiparty conspiracy going on. Inspection is random, and with every extra container you use, you are increasing your chance of interception. Additionally you are multiplying the complexity of the operation - it might be doable to sneak into a single container to retrieve a portable object - but several containers unloaded in an unpredictable sequence?

[dirtboy]

Here is what you posted, in response to saying the 45 day review was required here:

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.

So you did not contest in that post that the two requirements were not met. Instead, you are mentioning that the review had to take 90 days. In other words, you are clearly insinuating that the 90 days is a factor in whether the 45 day review is done.

You are so full of it - you just spin away from one position to another, throwing personal attacks all along the way.

[babygene]

Doesn't matter if they have a clue. If FR won't support Bush, then nobody will. US not having a clue can be rectified if he would communicate. Nobody "should" take his word for anything at this point. He's a guy that still thinks the mooselimbs are the religion of Peace... He's out of his frigging mind.

[voteconstitutionparty]

The CIA says the UAE is one of the largest transhipment points in the world for heroin.

Can you provide a link that says the CIA is similarly concerned about any of the other ports you mention?

You're right though to challenge me to find a specific link that has the headline you ask for. Most news reports just mention where the heroin came from, and where it ended up, not where it was shipped through.

Still, if you do a search you'll find there's lots of information on the web about the role they play in the shipping of heroin.

[Coop]

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Final Authority]

When the polls come in and the President is informed that over 60% of the American public is against this deal the idea that he has established deniability that he knew of the decision will allow him to cancel it.

What is most problematic about this deal however that it has allowed the Democrats to get back in to the election later this year. The GOP was trouncing the Dems respecting national security and now they can run on the idea that they stood up to the President, supported by leading members of the GOP, and were for what amounts to profiling, discrimination, prejudice, and other requirements that assure ones survival. It is important to discriminate unless you don't care about your or your family's welfare. One discriminates usually with every meal we eat, where we live, where we walk in the city, where we park, what doctor we have, what school we attend, and what neighbors we will tolerate. Having UAE neighbors are not tolerable, especially when they can control our ports of entry. We fought a damn war over this and established a nation under our constitution over this and we can't let our guard down now.

The GOP will lose elections over this issue. Could it be that GWB and his father and the CFR has designed this to make it easy for Hillary to win?

[sarasota]

Quite a conspiracy theory, I know. I'd best not quit my day job.

[wideawake]

I think that a terrorist approaches these issues like anyone else with an agenda - i.e. how do I get what I want with the least amount of wasted effort, wasted expense and chance of discovery?

And for our enemies the answer will always be: the cheapest, easiest and most clandestine way to get people or things into the US is the Swiss cheese border with Mexico.

[hershey]

Stupid and a gift to Hillary.

[sarasota]

Agreed. And once again we have a "bigger" issue that will keep border control on the back burner.

[DCPatriot]

Even Rush won't predict the outcome.

While I'll follow President Bush on this, I must say that if this were "President Kerry" doing this we'd be screaming.

[dirtboy]

I think that a terrorist approaches these issues like anyone else with an agenda - i.e. how do I get what I want with the least amount of wasted effort, wasted expense and chance of discovery?

Unfortunately, al Qaeda has a different approach - they prefer elaborate and orchestrated schemes.

I fear for the day when they just start running loners over the border to shoot up soft targets in the manner you alluded to - that would be almost impossible to stop given our porous borders. But that's not their M.O. - they would rather go for the spectacular attack even if it increases the chance of detection. Which is why I think they will try the chemical or radiological attack via a ship someday.

[FerdieMurphy]

Gotcha.

[RedStateRocker]

" We will never win this war with childish knee-jerk people at the wheel that can't see a strategy."

The only way to win a war is to kill all who oppose you, or at least kill so many of them that the remainder capitulate unconditionally. (Unlike the old USSR I doubt Islam will just dissolve). I think we're about 1.2 billion martyrs short of victory.

[Coop]

While I'll follow President Bush on this, I must say that if this were "President Kerry" doing this we'd be screaming.

Apples and oranges. Dubya has worked his entire Presidency to fight terrorism and protect our nation - despite the bleating around here. Kerry has worked openly to sell out our country and betray the military on two or three separate (combat) occasions.

[Coop]

Gotcha? You're saying it was required? Fine. Prove it.