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

Nealz Nuze ^ | 22 February 2006 | Neal Boortz

[WatchingInAmazement]

About that WH PR campaign:


They are Bell Pottinger, UK. Evidently well known by this administration.

History

In March 2004 BPPA won a $5.8m (£3.2m) four-month contract from the U.S. supported administration in Iraq to promote the establishment of democracy ahead of the handover of power to the interim Iraqi authority on 30 June. According to PR Week, the contract also includes promoting the election of an Iraqi government.

"B-PC will work with its Dubai operation Bates PanGulf, and Baghdad-based media services company Balloch & Roe. A small team will be sent to work with Balloch & Roe's Arabic writers who will advise on how best to cross the cultural divide," PR Week reported.

The project team, PR Week reports will be headed by Mark Turnbull and the head of BPPA's Dubai office Tom Mollo. The Independent (UK) reported that company founder Tim Bell described his role as "masterminding the campaign in London". [1] (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=500728) [edit] Clients

Clients include

* BAE Systems * McDonalds * Imperial Tobacco [2] (http://www.bppa.co.uk/clients.html) * Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) [3] (http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1934)

Staff

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bell_Pottinger_Public_Affairs

Dobbs aired tonight and he is underfire big time. Let CNN know that we appreciate his reporting:

But included in this entire strategy is a P.R. campaign by DP World. And as part of that, a high-level delegation flew into Washington from the United Arab Emirates.

A number of people, the delegates, also the commercial attache, they're planning on doing a number of media interviews. They are also planning on talking to U.S. officials on this. But they will not talk to CNN. I spoke to somebody, Mark Dennis, a representative of the P.R. firm Bell Pottinger. He says this delegation will not talk to CNN because "CNN won't shut up Lou Dobbs." Of course he's referring to our early coverage on this story where we were out in front with this story last week.

It's important to note also that they're not denying this interview because of any false reporting or inaccuracies or anything like that. The reason why is they just simply don't want the story out there. Of course we're out here at United Arab Emirates, and we will continue to monitor this and continue to track down this delegation. And they know that we're out here, and they're welcome to come out and do an interview at any time -- Lou.

DOBBS: Lisa, thank you very much. Indeed, they are welcome. As you noted, we first reported this story. We were the first television program to report this story Monday, more than a week ago now.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/21/ldt.01.html

[Robert A Cook PE]

I have not heard ANY justification for a veto on this: Words, sure. But nothing said yet justifies even the threat of a veto .....

Not when he signed the CLEARLY illegal McCain-Feingold law.

Something else, some one else is pushing this agenda through. It's not just another international company merger.

[Alberta's Child]

I saw on CNN last night that of some 1500 deals they have reviewed since the law was created that they have approved all but ONE.

That information is a little misleading. I don't doubt that the vast majority of these applications are approved, but my understanding is that the Federal board charged with reviewing them will often permit the applicant to withdraw or amend a proposed acquisition rather than face an outright rejection.

The last controversial one which they approved was for the acquisition of UNOCAL Oil by the Communist Chinese. That also rightly raised a hue and cry in the Congress and the public.

Actually, the "hue and cry in the Congress and the public" over that one was almost as misguided as it is on this one -- and I said so at the time.

Apparently this Committee has never seen a strategic asset that they are not willing to sell to an enemy.

This Committee does not sell U.S. strategic assets to anyone. It serves only to review the sale of potential strategic assets from one entity to another (foreign) one.

[theFIRMbss]

>The Chinese weren't flying planes into buildings

Neither were "Arabs."
The people flying the planes
were a bunch of nuts

who just represent
a fringe sect of crazy folks.
Blaming all Arabs

for the psycho nuts
is like, for instance, the Serbs
blaming all of us

because the Klintons
and the 'Rats bombed Serbia.
Let's keep our brains on.

[notigar]

You don't seem to mind blaming all Palestinians: "It is "civil" and "democratic" because they just kill dissenters!"

[theFIRMbss]

>You don't seem to mind blaming all Palestinians

Palestinians
just elected Hamas scum.
No Arab country

elected the nuts
who flew the planes in New York
or those who planned it.

[RightWhale]

The veto would be on a Congressional bill to kill the deal. There may be no such bill passing either house.

[notigar]

That's a good point, and a classy way to say it.

[ELS]

bump for later reading

[Echo Talon]

The Chinese weren't flying planes into buildings.

Neither was the Government of the UAE, unless you have some some evidence of that. Do you think the US Government and Tim McVeigh were in Cahoots?

[Echo Talon]

Which port in California does China run? Provide details please.

Oh about 50% of the ports in LA.

[Echo Talon]

What ports in calif...?

Chinese operate 50% of the ports in LA and others.

[trubluolyguy]

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.

---

EXACTLY! Same here. Had there been a better choice(and damn the party) I'd have voted that way. There wasn't, we get Jorge.

[Gondring]

EXACTLY! Same here. Had there been a better choice(and damn the party) I'd have voted that way. There wasn't, we get Jorge.

That's what I heard a lot from Republicans I called during the election.

[Czar]

"On just what level does it make sense to the President of the United States to turn over the operations of six critical American ports to an Islamic government ... especially an Islamic government with established ties to terrorists who have already struck and killed thousands of Americans?"

The threshold question, is it not?

[PRND21]

You two have never been right.
But hey, keep swinging. Your credibility can't get any lower.
I'll now ignore your quisling/true conservative blather.

[Czar]

"Your credibility can't get any lower."

I find solace in the knowledge it can never sink to your subterranean level.

[PRND21]

You've sunk to Portgate levels. And every other gate you can find.

[Czar]

You're beginning to babble.

Again.

[PRND21]

Sorry, I'll stick to agreeing with Chuckie, DU and Hillary like you, sPort.