Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Correcting 3 Lies about the Port Deal (Vanity)
Febuary 23, 2006

Posted on 02/22/2006 4:34:50 PM PST by johnmecainrino

Bush didn't know because congress mandated for this foreign service group to keep the decisions secret. The group only informs the president if they go to an extended period of review and then reject it. No one on the top white house staff knew. It was done by middle level bueracracy mostly in these agencies. Congress mandated the process by non political and kept secret.

Congress didn't know because it is a federal crime to talk about the specifics of the deal. Again congress mandated it be secret and now they are screaming how bush didn't inform them.

Based on the law congress passed in 1988 Bush couldn't have reversed the deal after it was approved by this committee. The law states that after the deal was approved by the committee bush or the committee can only go back and review the deal if the company lied to them on the application.

On MSNBC right now we are hearing how bush was out of the loop again and all the bs. That was the law. And when I hear congress complaining about the secrecy, damn them they wrote the law that way to protect the propriety of the companies.

Scott McClellan has to be the worst press secretary ever. He didn't even know today that the american unions would still be involved and that homeland security got in the deal to do a background check before anyone can enter the facility that works for the company.

Bush needs to go on national TV primetime to stop the lies. Worst of all a lot of the lies are being spread by peter king who is clueless on the 1988 law that was written. If he is so upset change the law instead of blaming bush for a law congress mandated.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: d; ports; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last
To: snowman1

For crying out loud? Didn't I just say I am agreeing with it the more I learn about it? Sheesh. You flame people even when they agree with you?


41 posted on 02/22/2006 5:26:00 PM PST by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend


I just watched Peter on O'Reilly. Why does he look different? Face lift? Contact lenses? Tinted hair for sure.


42 posted on 02/22/2006 5:26:10 PM PST by onyx (IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: johnmecainrino
Great post.

We should keep a running list of these lies, misconceptions, and outright fabrications.

You didn't number yours, so I'll start with mine:

Myth #1: This deal was hatched in secret in the last couple of weeks without any knowledge on the part of our highly-esteemed leaders in Congress like Chuck Schumer, Peter King, etc.

Fact: The acquisition of P&O Ports by Dubai Ports World was formally announced on November 29, 2005. The fact that people like Schumer, King, etc. waited until mid-February to express their "concerns" about a corporate acquisition that was made public in November of last year tells me they are either too ignorant and incompetent to dress themselves in the morning, or they are just opportunistic, self-aggrandizing @ssholes.

43 posted on 02/22/2006 5:27:07 PM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darlan
PART 800—REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO MERGERS, ACQUISITIONS, AND TAKEOVERS BY FOREIGN PERSONS

US CODE, TITLE 50, APPENDIX App. > DEFENSE > ACT > TITLE VII > § 2170 Prev | Next § 2170. Authority to review certain mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers

The above will keep someone active for a while.

44 posted on 02/22/2006 5:30:05 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles
No, sorry no panic. I have listened closely to all sides of this for a week now. The former fat man is poking fun at it - which tells me to be wary. Vanity is for it hook line and sinker - which tells me to be wary. McCanaic is for it which makes me very scared. Laura Ingram is against it which makes me want to know more.

Name me one other thing Bush has threatened to veto. Can you? He claims he only heard about it on Wednesday - and Thursday he's out making threats?

Oh yea and he has done such a marvelous job protecting our Southern and Northern borders.

I am sorry you resorted to name calling instead of facts. FWIW I don't give a rats a$$ what Hildebeast thinks.

45 posted on 02/22/2006 5:31:54 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Hmmm...
Made public last fall, and just now being amplified and contorted into something that inflames the masses...
Sounds familiar, can't quite put my finger...


46 posted on 02/22/2006 5:35:19 PM PST by Dad x 3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: johnmecainrino

man some of the most ill-informed people on this forum are having a field day with this...

thank you for your rational and well thought out post.


47 posted on 02/22/2006 5:36:25 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I will admit, i don't know a whole lot about this. But my first instinct is to say i am uncomfortable with arabs running port security for us. Can someone explain to me why anyone except Americans are in charge of anything security related? For Bush to say it is up to us to prove why an arab company should be held to a different standard than a British company is pure PC BS. Common sense would indicate that we should be at least a little more critical of this. Shouldn't it be up to him to explain to us why this is not a big deal?
48 posted on 02/22/2006 5:36:51 PM PST by KurtZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: KurtZ

"They" will NOT be runing security!


49 posted on 02/22/2006 5:39:38 PM PST by Dad x 3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Dad x 3

So what will "they" be doing?


50 posted on 02/22/2006 5:41:18 PM PST by KurtZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: KurtZ

This may be a state-run business running the ports, but it is a business. For them, this is an investment, a means of making money...capitalism.
Last night, I posted a link indicating a California company is investing a quarter billion dollars in Dubai for a tourist space port. Dubai businessmen will be investing, too, to make a profit. More capitalism. (will repost the link after posting this)
I just do not believe that this is as sinister as it seems, but I will admit that with all the thermonuclear heat that this subject is generating, more light is being shed on the need for tougher port security in general. That is "our" job and will continue to be so.


51 posted on 02/22/2006 5:54:10 PM PST by Dad x 3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
"Laura Ingram is against it which makes me want to know more."

She will regret it. Probably already does but thinks she has to stick to her guns or look foolish.

Port security is run by Americans. Write it on the black board a million times. Port security is run by Americans.

52 posted on 02/22/2006 5:59:32 PM PST by Hound of the Baskervilles (Liberals are unfit for citizenship in a country that values freedom and courage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: KurtZ
It's Homeland Security that screens for security.

The company will do the business at the specific terminal at the port...that is, unloading stuff, directing it to where it needs to go, etc.

53 posted on 02/22/2006 5:59:45 PM PST by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dad x 3

"US Company Plans $265M Spaceport in UAE"

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/396279/us_company_plans_265m_spaceport_in_uae/index.html


54 posted on 02/22/2006 6:01:50 PM PST by Dad x 3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: johnmecainrino

bttt


55 posted on 02/22/2006 6:02:59 PM PST by petercooper (Win the war. Confirm the judges. Cut the taxes. Control the spending. Seal the borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles
People made a snap judgement against it and now don't want to admit that they should have waited for more information.

Bingo. Even if you're against this, it doesn't deserve the kvetching that it's received. A lot of red faces in blogland and some aren't willing to admit it.

56 posted on 02/22/2006 6:05:05 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

so if i understand you correctly, they are in charge of unloading freight and the general upkeep of the port, but have nothing to do with any security operations (i.e. assisting with inspections or securing the site)?


57 posted on 02/22/2006 6:06:13 PM PST by KurtZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Dad x 3
"For them, this is an investment, a means of making money...capitalism. "
"Capitalists" also support the illegal Mexican invasion of this country. That doesn't make them right or legal or ethical. Besides, we don't live in a "capitalist" country anyway - America is a mildly socialist country whether we like to admit it or not. Pure capitalism died in 1929.
58 posted on 02/22/2006 6:10:31 PM PST by afz400
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
OK, let's suppose that there's a terrorist act on US soil. The whole country won't be destroyed (the nature of terrorism is not to do so and they don't have the capability) so the US will respond.

If there is any whiff that it came through a UAE-run port, Dubai will be a former Emirate. It's much less likely for terrorism to go through the ports now than through ports run by the squishy multi-culti Brits.

59 posted on 02/22/2006 6:11:31 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KurtZ

Correct. Homeland Security, Coast Guard, etc.


60 posted on 02/22/2006 6:12:37 PM PST by Dad x 3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson