The President doesn't see illegal immigration or budget-busting as national security issues either. He should.
the PORTGATE thread, where do you stand?
- Thread starter gunsmith
- Start date
- Status
First post here. I am against any foriegn control of anythig having to do with national security. I really do not understand why domestic companies did not bid on this.
Scott
Scott
welcome to thr scott!
I am glad you posted on my thread first, be sure to comment on my other threads too...
I am glad you posted on my thread first, be sure to comment on my other threads too...
RealGun
Member
Perhaps because they are afraid of the longshoreman's union, which is currently under indictment for racketeering by the DOJ, as of last summer. Even our own companies are subject to corruption. Until or unless UAE diplomatic status changes, they are eligible.
One thing we can assume about the longshoremen and their friends: they have a good thing going. They are not about to nuke any U.S. port., especially with themselves in it.
If the U.S. lacks companies that can serve us in critical strategic functions then it should find creative ways to develop and encourage them.
I think the crux of all of our problems lies in our addiction to, and worship of, consumerism, which has not only vast economic but also moral implications.
Over.
If the U.S. lacks companies that can serve us in critical strategic functions then it should find creative ways to develop and encourage them.
I think the crux of all of our problems lies in our addiction to, and worship of, consumerism, which has not only vast economic but also moral implications.
Over.
Does anyone believe that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Chertoff don't know about business deals of this magnitude and far-reaching implications?
Handing over control, however partial, however qualified, of strategic assets is bad. Allowing one's government to condescend to you is far worse. We are not children, we are not fools. It's time we made that abundantly clear.
Handing over control, however partial, however qualified, of strategic assets is bad. Allowing one's government to condescend to you is far worse. We are not children, we are not fools. It's time we made that abundantly clear.
RealGun
Member
Why would anyone bother to explain anything to you, if you would always assume they were lying? The whole purpose of CFIUS is to delegate executive branch responsibility for reviewing foreign acquisitions. If there are no objections, the transaction is not escalated to the President or put on Cabinet meeting agendas. However, my own Senator Graham made the now famous remark that this deal was "politically tone deaf", and I don't disagree. The tone deaf part though is on the part of CFIUS being insensitive and even derelict in waiving the formal investigation requirement. I might support rolling someones head, but it wouldn't be the President's. He should have competent Cabinet members to which he can comfortably delegate Executive Branch responsibilities.
This is the text of the letter from Senators sent to the chairman of CFIUS:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Dubai_Ports_letter.pdf
Last edited:
To Realgun:
"Why would anyone bother to explain anything to you, if you would always assume they were lying?"
Because we pay their salaries. Because WE employ them. They work for US. And WE demand it.
They are not nobility. They are not royalty. They are public servants answerable to We the People, despite the frighteningly serflike mentality of a swath of the population that thinks of them as some sort of noble, wiser class.
"He should have competent Cabinet members to which he can comfortably delegate Executive Branch responsibilities."
A ship's captain is responsible for the actions of every man and woman under his command, and it is his DUTY to know what is being done under his command at all times.
The office of the President of the United States is no different. And one thing that Bush truly can be faulted on is that he is remarkably incurious.
A president needs to say "The buck stops here". Not "I was not informed of where the buck stops by the assistant to the vice-secretary of the office that reports to the secretary of the department of redundancy department."
And as for competent Cabinet members, yes, well, HIRING competent experts rather than political appointees who "fail upwards" would go a long way towards that.
"Why would anyone bother to explain anything to you, if you would always assume they were lying?"
Because we pay their salaries. Because WE employ them. They work for US. And WE demand it.
They are not nobility. They are not royalty. They are public servants answerable to We the People, despite the frighteningly serflike mentality of a swath of the population that thinks of them as some sort of noble, wiser class.
"He should have competent Cabinet members to which he can comfortably delegate Executive Branch responsibilities."
A ship's captain is responsible for the actions of every man and woman under his command, and it is his DUTY to know what is being done under his command at all times.
The office of the President of the United States is no different. And one thing that Bush truly can be faulted on is that he is remarkably incurious.
A president needs to say "The buck stops here". Not "I was not informed of where the buck stops by the assistant to the vice-secretary of the office that reports to the secretary of the department of redundancy department."
And as for competent Cabinet members, yes, well, HIRING competent experts rather than political appointees who "fail upwards" would go a long way towards that.
RealGun
Member
The paradox here is that you wouldn't value an honest admission that someone above the decision making process didn't see it coming. Some work really hard at finding a mean-spirited position, valuing being angry and prosecutorial (partisan) more than any other aspect.
Yes, they do. And some wouldn't find fault with their Sinless Can Do No Wrong Holy High Lord Exalted Leader if they pulled off a rubber mask to reveal themselves to be a horrible alien. 
(And that applies to people who are so blindly loyal to either party, mind you)
And you miss the point entirely. He is SUPPOSED to know what is going on! He is supposed to DEMAND that people inform him before things like this go into action!
If something like this went forward and went out to the full view of the world and public and "he didn't know about it", there's two reasons possible. One, he's lying. Two, he is NOT in command of everything he should be command of. This should have been on his desk, in his full knowledge, since it's an utmost matter of national security.
So he's either lying, or he's not in charge as he should be. Either way is bad.
And BTW, 'honest' administrations aren't so darned fetishistic about every single innocuous decision and event and situation needing to be a SECRET. They're even re-classifying junk that's been public since the late 1940's.
Most of the stuff we're finding out that's gone wrong is only because some fed-up public employee or FBI or CIA member of a scapegoated division leaks it to the press. That's hardly a healthy "we the people" government.
The standard greeting in Washington these days is "Shh! Secret!"...but they're selling port control to Islamist nations and not securing the borders. Tell me that's healthy for the nation...
(And that applies to people who are so blindly loyal to either party, mind you) And you miss the point entirely. He is SUPPOSED to know what is going on! He is supposed to DEMAND that people inform him before things like this go into action!
If something like this went forward and went out to the full view of the world and public and "he didn't know about it", there's two reasons possible. One, he's lying. Two, he is NOT in command of everything he should be command of. This should have been on his desk, in his full knowledge, since it's an utmost matter of national security.
So he's either lying, or he's not in charge as he should be. Either way is bad.
And BTW, 'honest' administrations aren't so darned fetishistic about every single innocuous decision and event and situation needing to be a SECRET. They're even re-classifying junk that's been public since the late 1940's.
Most of the stuff we're finding out that's gone wrong is only because some fed-up public employee or FBI or CIA member of a scapegoated division leaks it to the press. That's hardly a healthy "we the people" government.The standard greeting in Washington these days is "Shh! Secret!"...but they're selling port control to Islamist nations and not securing the borders. Tell me that's healthy for the nation...
RealGun
Member
Before you expand the scope of your complaints and of this thread, consider that Section 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 specifies that CFIUS is confidential by definition.
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/
"does not play well with others"
Bush is handling this issue the same way he handled the criticism of his buddy Alberto Gonsalez. This is a President who takes everything personally, who refuses to listen to criticisms, worse, who doesn't think he has to. What I see, frankly, is a temper tantrum. Let's call it what it is.
I voted for the man twice, if only because the alternatives would have been worse (I thought), but I've had to realize that this man is dangerous to our national health--and not just because of Portgate.
Bush is handling this issue the same way he handled the criticism of his buddy Alberto Gonsalez. This is a President who takes everything personally, who refuses to listen to criticisms, worse, who doesn't think he has to. What I see, frankly, is a temper tantrum. Let's call it what it is.
I voted for the man twice, if only because the alternatives would have been worse (I thought), but I've had to realize that this man is dangerous to our national health--and not just because of Portgate.
RealGun
Member
Even more dangerous is Bush Bad Syndrome. It is simply not true that the President is always wrong. There is probably a medication of some sort. Be careful not to become one of pure malice and miss counting your blessings. You have less than a year until presidential campaigning starts in earnest, so just be patient.
Worse than Bush is bad syndrome is it mutating into Republicans bad syndrome which I think will happen.
The last thing I want is for Hillary to win in a landslide thereby believing that she has some kind of mandate to turn this place into China.
The last thing I want is for Hillary to win in a landslide thereby believing that she has some kind of mandate to turn this place into China.
My attitude toward Bush has nothing to do with malice. Nor do I welcome Hillary, Giuliani, or McCain as an alternative. We are NOT limited to foolish choices from either party. If we find ourselves corralled that way, that is OUR fault, and, frankly, we can no longer permit ourselves to be manipulated any longer--if we want to survive as a viable Republic. As far as I'm concerned Bush and the Clinton duo are three heads on the same body, just variations on a pernicious, self-destructive theme.
Don't create a straw man, RealGun. Bush was right about tax cuts, about encouraging savings and investment, about reforming Social Security. His war policy is, to me, a work-in-progress; too early to say if it makes sense or advances this nation's interests or not. He is dead wrong on his overspending, expansion of the Federal gov't, refusal to control our southern border, and our lack of any sensible energy policy. Unfortunately, what he's wrong about is so momentous that it will cause the collapse of America as we know it within relatively few years.
You can think what you want. I think most of America is looking at Bush's behavior and going by its gut--and that does not bode well for Bush or his Administration. Something's rotten in Denmark-by-the-Potomac.
Don't create a straw man, RealGun. Bush was right about tax cuts, about encouraging savings and investment, about reforming Social Security. His war policy is, to me, a work-in-progress; too early to say if it makes sense or advances this nation's interests or not. He is dead wrong on his overspending, expansion of the Federal gov't, refusal to control our southern border, and our lack of any sensible energy policy. Unfortunately, what he's wrong about is so momentous that it will cause the collapse of America as we know it within relatively few years.
You can think what you want. I think most of America is looking at Bush's behavior and going by its gut--and that does not bode well for Bush or his Administration. Something's rotten in Denmark-by-the-Potomac.
If you don't want Hillary, find a Republican with some ideas and some spine. The best the GOP can find is McCain, Giuliani, Romney, or Allen?
+1 longeyes
The only way HRC can win in 2008 is if all of the following hold:
1) Dems run her (probably will - they never seem to learn)
2) the Great Impostor keeps his wrecking course for the 2 remaining years
3) Reps nominate another RINO
Sadly, all sides seem headed to exactly that juncture in spacetime.
The only way HRC can win in 2008 is if all of the following hold:
1) Dems run her (probably will - they never seem to learn)
2) the Great Impostor keeps his wrecking course for the 2 remaining years
3) Reps nominate another RINO
Sadly, all sides seem headed to exactly that juncture in spacetime.
Subterfuge rears its ugly head.
www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
Biker
www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
Biker
Yes. Some of the most logical objections are coming from people with an (R) after their name, so this can't be called partisan. It's lawmakers who have been made irrelevant by a "decision" that completely bypassed them. They don't like it. I don't like it either. A deal to turn 21 ports...our STRATEGIC interests...over to the UAE. And the members of congress were left out of the loop!
And Bush's reaction is to, like a child, declare that he'll use his first ever veto not on overbloated spending...but to stop any measure meant to block this port deal.
WHY is he so adamant about it that he'd utterly alienate a growing number of his own party?
And it's not "hating Bush". It's mere acceptance of reality. You can stand on the tilting deck as more and more of the ship goes under, and say that people yelling that the ship is sinking just hate the ship, but you can only do that till the water closes over your head. Or, you can realize and say "Aw, crap, the ship is sinking, we need to do something to bail it out NOW"...and save it.
Ever watch the A&E Horatio Hornblower series? The one with the admiral everyone liked, but that kept venturing further and further into horrible strategic decisions that were endangering the ship, until he finally decided to put the ship in range of a fort above and try to fire up, the ship started getting nailed badly, and they had to decide whether he was unfit for command?
We ARE talking about the loss of the Republic, here. Doesn't matter if you like him. What's wrong is SO wrong, and SO serious, at this point...
And Bush's reaction is to, like a child, declare that he'll use his first ever veto not on overbloated spending...but to stop any measure meant to block this port deal.
WHY is he so adamant about it that he'd utterly alienate a growing number of his own party?
And it's not "hating Bush". It's mere acceptance of reality. You can stand on the tilting deck as more and more of the ship goes under, and say that people yelling that the ship is sinking just hate the ship, but you can only do that till the water closes over your head. Or, you can realize and say "Aw, crap, the ship is sinking, we need to do something to bail it out NOW"...and save it.
Ever watch the A&E Horatio Hornblower series? The one with the admiral everyone liked, but that kept venturing further and further into horrible strategic decisions that were endangering the ship, until he finally decided to put the ship in range of a fort above and try to fire up, the ship started getting nailed badly, and they had to decide whether he was unfit for command?
We ARE talking about the loss of the Republic, here. Doesn't matter if you like him. What's wrong is SO wrong, and SO serious, at this point...
RealGun
Member
It is very simple actually. Everyone seems to ignore that UAE is an ally in good standing. If that status should be challenged, fine, but the entire diplomatic program is at risk when a country "in good standing" encounters blatant discrimination from the US. The charter of CFIUS includes preventing such discrimination. The initial reaction of Congress is inappropriate and shameful.
The President does a number of things in threatening a veto. First he is speaking on behalf of the Dept of State and all their diplomatic efforts and goals. Secondly he is telling Congress that the Executive Branch is not going to be run by committee to include the Legislative Branch. Functions delegated to the Executive Branch are going to be performed by same. If Congress has a technical complaint, let them say what it is. Lastly the President is defending and supporting his Cabinet. Congress is denying the realities of international trade on behalf of the naivete of the electorate. Who hasn't learned something about commerce as a result of all this?
Denying participation to UAE has very broad implications. I believe the President is aware of those implications, since there was an orchestrated fielding of Cabinet members and speeches on the subject of energy independence immediately following news of the ports deal.
The US cannot be cavalier about maintaining good relations with foreign countries when our oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. Those are just the top five, and only Canada presents a truly comfortable political environment. One half of our imports of crude are from OPEC countries. UAE as a US oil supplier is a very minor player, shipping primarily to Japan, but they have the ports and can control the Straits of Hormuz with shores on both sides of the straits. That passage provides shipping and naval access to the entire Persian Gulf.
Viewing a map, one can note that Iran is a short hop across the straits. It can easily be seen that good relations with UAE could be a strategic advantage in any confrontation with Iran. It can also be observed that Iran could invade UAE without US interest and presence in the Gulf and in UAE ports. It is really not a good time to say that UAE cannot be trusted because they are Arabs. At some point in our over reactions, Osama bin Laden wins.
Oil statistics at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_annual/psa_volume1/current/pdf/table_21.pdf
Facts about UAE at
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.maps.com/magellan/Images/UAE-W1.gif&imgrefurl=http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/Around_the_World/Countries/United_Arab_Emirates/Maps/&h=481&w=517&sz=32&tbnid=KRlaJeWOJe4J:&tbnh=119&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Duae%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&oi=imagesr&start=1
Let me understand you:
Because a foreign nation is an "ally" we have to cede control of strategic interests to them, without oversight by Congress?
We are so beholden to oil-producing countries that we no longer have any leverage over our own security?
This is way too important a matter to be left to the likes of the U.S. Congress and Bush needs to affirm the impregnable power of the imperial Presidency and the Knights Templars at the State Dept.?
We are going to need that air base in the UAE when we attack Iran and if we don't allow the UAE to take over our ports, well, they won't cooperate and may wind up taken over themselves by a hostile Iran?
I think, RealGun, you have raised more questions than you've answered. For starters, one might want to question why so many American Presidents, including the Two Bushes, have avoided any sensible energy-independence policies over the last 30 years? Now we are being told, in effect, well, you know, we need friends and if those friends want in, we have to say okay, no matter what it is they want.
As for the U.S. State Dept. and the geniuses who run it, I think there are a lot of folks who might question their record over the last fifty years, wondering exactly whose interests they are protecting and whether they aren't more worried about foreign clients than their own nation.
Because a foreign nation is an "ally" we have to cede control of strategic interests to them, without oversight by Congress?
We are so beholden to oil-producing countries that we no longer have any leverage over our own security?
This is way too important a matter to be left to the likes of the U.S. Congress and Bush needs to affirm the impregnable power of the imperial Presidency and the Knights Templars at the State Dept.?
We are going to need that air base in the UAE when we attack Iran and if we don't allow the UAE to take over our ports, well, they won't cooperate and may wind up taken over themselves by a hostile Iran?
I think, RealGun, you have raised more questions than you've answered. For starters, one might want to question why so many American Presidents, including the Two Bushes, have avoided any sensible energy-independence policies over the last 30 years? Now we are being told, in effect, well, you know, we need friends and if those friends want in, we have to say okay, no matter what it is they want.
As for the U.S. State Dept. and the geniuses who run it, I think there are a lot of folks who might question their record over the last fifty years, wondering exactly whose interests they are protecting and whether they aren't more worried about foreign clients than their own nation.
The UAE has, we have all learned by now, a checkered record when it comes to dealing with terrorists and extremists. They endorse positions at odds with those of the American people. Let's not sentimentalize what is really an alliance of convenience. I am aware that the emirs have been very generous with their donations to certain Presidential libraries and their operational foundations, but that by itself does not, in my mind, make them "allies in good standing."
The intimation of racial prejudice is particularly galling and really, in the light of the entire picture, absurd in the extreme. I think the Bush administration has learned the language of the times very well; they know how to manipulate the concepts of political correctness when it suits their purposes. If you believe in cultural equivalency, then you will have no trouble ascribing "good standing" to nations that flagrantly violate the values of the Enlightenment and embracing them as trading partners. This is why we can advance liberty in one part of the world while having no problem importing huge amounts of products produced with slave labor. I prefer not to be so "open-minded."
RealGun
Member
As far as I know, UAE is a trade and diplomatic status peer of the country which it is replacing (UK). The main difference is that DPW is state-owned, supposedly requiring use of the Byrd amendment to Exon-Florio, which calls for 45 day investigation. I say supposedly, because UAE is not acquiring US assets. They are LEASING the port operations. The argument is one of security, not of the effect on our economy.
The sticky part will come in telling UAE that they are disqualified for no good reason other than that they remind US citizens of Osama Bin Laden, who doesn't even come from UAE. The stock arguments against UAE are out-of-context cut and pastes from DU.
To me, this is not unlike adhering to the Constitution. You either make stuff up as you go along or you adhere to stated principles. If the outcome is that some countries need to be disqualified from full diplomatic and trading status because of support of terrorists or otherwise failing to meet criteria for allies of the first order, then the rules are being changed after the fact. We will also have to confront closing down operations of ports by other questionable countries, one of which is China in Los Angeles. This is hardly a move that a conservative would make. Better sell all your stocks now before the economy collapses.
Congress has it about right. From what I have heard and read, they are making no other proposals other than to insist upon the 45 day investigation, no doubt to include reports to applicable congressional committees. I also expect that Condi Rice will testify extensively about the consequences of killing this deal without adequate justification. Most of that will probably be in closed session, obviously with a need to be discreet rather airing all the comments in front of all foreign countries.
The sticky part will come in telling UAE that they are disqualified for no good reason other than that they remind US citizens of Osama Bin Laden, who doesn't even come from UAE. The stock arguments against UAE are out-of-context cut and pastes from DU.
To me, this is not unlike adhering to the Constitution. You either make stuff up as you go along or you adhere to stated principles. If the outcome is that some countries need to be disqualified from full diplomatic and trading status because of support of terrorists or otherwise failing to meet criteria for allies of the first order, then the rules are being changed after the fact. We will also have to confront closing down operations of ports by other questionable countries, one of which is China in Los Angeles. This is hardly a move that a conservative would make. Better sell all your stocks now before the economy collapses.
Congress has it about right. From what I have heard and read, they are making no other proposals other than to insist upon the 45 day investigation, no doubt to include reports to applicable congressional committees. I also expect that Condi Rice will testify extensively about the consequences of killing this deal without adequate justification. Most of that will probably be in closed session, obviously with a need to be discreet rather airing all the comments in front of all foreign countries.
+1 longeyes
The rationalizations about "allies" are very weak. USSR had allies too, but they did not turn over Archangelsk, Vladivostok, Sevastopol, or Odesa to Czechoslovakia.
UAE are business partners at best. Giving them strategic control is a blatant vote (or veto) cast on the side of corporate globalism and against national security and national interests. A very troubling development in an administration with such strongly proclaimed devotion to national security.
After this fiasco, the Impostor must be left with a handful of only the most staunch supporters. Reagan is spinning in his grave...
The rationalizations about "allies" are very weak. USSR had allies too, but they did not turn over Archangelsk, Vladivostok, Sevastopol, or Odesa to Czechoslovakia.
UAE are business partners at best. Giving them strategic control is a blatant vote (or veto) cast on the side of corporate globalism and against national security and national interests. A very troubling development in an administration with such strongly proclaimed devotion to national security.
After this fiasco, the Impostor must be left with a handful of only the most staunch supporters. Reagan is spinning in his grave...
- Status
