Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal

[michaeledward]

Just to be clear. The only person who has received money from the UAE, to the tune of 300,000 dollars, is named Clinton.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong ... the person who received money from the UAE was named Bush ... .to the tune of over $1,000,000.00

Feb. 23, 2006, 5:58PM
UAE gave $1 million to Bush library

By WENDY BENJAMINSON
Associated Press
A sheik from the United Arab Emirates contributed at least $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station.

Oh, and the person who received money from P&O, is Treasure Secretary John Snow ... he recieved money when he sold his company to P&O. And Five years later he sits on the regulatory board, CFIUS, that has oversight for these types of transactions .... sweet.

 

[Don Roley]

I did not miss post 14 ... and your continued claims against two individuals, when there are about 535 recognizable people speaking against this transaction speaks of bias.

Not quite, you yourself in another thread posted a quote by a Republican strategist saying that few people in his party were willing to speak against this due to the popular opinion. When 70 percent of the populace are against something and it is an election year, do you try to do the right thing like John McCain and tell people to get all the facts or do you do the gutless thing and make a statement in line with polls when asked?

Now, who do you think has a stake in presenting that way of thinking? The republicans?

As we dealt with in the last thread, this deal is not a threat to the security of the US. That is a fact. But it is also a fact that 70 percent seem to feel it is.

So it is a easy issue for the deomcratic party to use as a wedge against the president and anyone willing to stand with him. It would be nice if people would actually learn about the issue. It would probably surprise most to hear that only about 15 percent of the people in Dubai are natives arabs and some refer to it jokingly as the best Indian city.

But that is not how politics is played. You go with the flow or get buried in cases like this.

Those that are leading the charge have a stake. Those that would normally support the president and who know the truth are just too gutless to say anything. (Exception- folks like McCain.)

But the facts are that this is not a threat to US security and the only person to get hundreds of thousands of dollars that they can use themselves are named Clinton.

No one is looking at that in the US. But boy are they looking at is overseas. The US people have taken it on the chin due to the way that the enemies of the president have done news conference after news conference. You sometimes hear that people in other countries like Americans, but don't like the goverment. Well, now due to the anti- foriegn crusade led by those who mainly see this as a way to attack the president, people in other countries seem to be seeing the people in a new light.

 

[michaeledward]

Talk about ****ing political ju-jitsu ...

Did you just use the term 'wedge-issue' when referring to a democrat? Jesus, Mary and Joseph ... That's bold!

There needs to be no widespread indoctrination ... oops, eductation, of the American voter. The indoctrination of the last five years will bear fruit later this year. Anyone in Congress who supports this deal will be looking for a job on K-Street.

 

[Don Roley]

Talk about ****ing political ju-jitsu ...

Did you just use the term 'wedge-issue' when referring to a democrat? Jesus, Mary and Joseph ... That's bold!

There needs to be no widespread indoctrination ... oops, eductation, of the American voter. The indoctrination of the last five years will bear fruit later this year. Anyone in Congress who supports this deal will be looking for a job on K-Street.

Are you saying that the deal is bad for American security? If that is not the case, then the people need some education. Most people do not know where Dubai is, nor know that 85 percent of the population are not even native Arabs.

But as you say, anyone who supports this bill may be looking at a new job. And thus all the quotes you make about Republicans making disparaging comments about it can be put in a proper light. It is not that they think it is bad, just that they don't want to lose their job. Gutless wonders. But of course, as republicans, they are not exactly leading the charge against the president- just trying not to lose their jobs. Thank you for making it so clear.

 

[michaeledward]

Are you saying that the deal is bad for American security? If that is not the case, then the people need some education. Most people do not know where Dubai is, nor know that 85 percent of the population are not even native Arabs.

But as you say, anyone who supports this bill may be looking at a new job. And thus all the quotes you make about Republicans making disparaging comments about it can be put in a proper light. It is not that they think it is bad, just that they don't want to lose their job. Gutless wonders. But of course, as republicans, they are not exactly leading the charge against the president- just trying not to lose their jobs. Thank you for making it so clear.

Why do you believe this issue a "charge against the president"?

As usual, the President didn't even know what was going on until after it happened ... and then he fully supported it and threatened a veto - quite probably before he could understand the ramifactions of the transaction.

 

[Don Roley]

Why do you believe this issue a "charge against the president"?

Do you honestly expect people to believe that Hillary Clinton and company are working for what they believe to be the best interests of the people and ignore the chance to score political points? :lol2:

And as to what the president did and when he did it, do you have any proof or are you able to prove that it has any relevance to the fact that the deal has no impact on national security?

 

[michaeledward]

Do you honestly expect people to believe that Hillary Clinton and company are working for what they believe to be the best interests of the people and ignore the chance to score political points? :lol2:

Do you honestly expect people to believe that Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, Rick Santorum, and Norm Coleman are working for what they believe to be the best interests of the people and ignore the chance to score political points?

And as to what the president did and when he did it, do you have any proof or are you able to prove that it has any relevance to the fact that the deal has no impact on national security?

Let's review

As usual, (1)the President didn't even know what was going on until after it happened ... and then (2) he fully supported it and (3)threatened a veto - quite probably before he could understand the ramifactions of the transaction.

(1)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185677,00.html

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

(2)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/port.security/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday defended a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates-based company run some key U.S. seaports
...
"I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue," Bush told reporters aboard Air Force One

(3)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/21/AR2006022100722.html

Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 22, 2006; Page A01

President Bush yesterday strongly defended an Arab company's attempt to take over the operation of seaports in Baltimore and five other cities, threatening a veto if Congress tries to kill a deal his administration has blessed.

 

[Don Roley]

So Mike, if the issues about this deal were a matter of concern, then would not the president have been informed? After the way that folks have been trying to say that the president somehow interfered in order to disregarded laws to somehow let the UAE take over, now you are saying it wasn't even important enough to merit someone bring this to his attention?

It would be nice if the people knew just how much of a non-issue this deal was. There is no threat to American security. But Hillary and company really don't want people to know the truth, they just want to score points. The old game of politics that proffesional politicians do so well. So sad to see that few people even in the president's own party are brave enough to take a stand for the truth. And so sad to see the damage these attacks on the president has had on the long term interests of the entire country. People who care more about the next election than in America's interest are the ones that will do better in the next election- but I don't have to like it or them.

And the democrats are pushing now for a vote to make the republicans take a stand before the American public has a chance to learn all the facts. Note, it is not the republicans that are pushing this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060304/ap_on_go_co/democrats_ports_security

This is how politics is played. And people like Hillary play it so well. Instead of waiting for the facts or trying to educate the public, push the issue when you have an advantage in the polls.

 

[michaeledward]

So Mike, if the issues about this deal were a matter of concern, then would not the president have been informed? After the way that folks have been trying to say that the president somehow interfered in order to disregarded laws to somehow let the UAE take over, now you are saying it wasn't even important enough to merit someone bring this to his attention?

What "folks have been trying to say that the president somehow interfered in order to disregarded laws"?

I have not seen that argument. I have seen it said that the CFIUS review, which is by law supposed to take 45 days may have been compressed. But throughout that proceedure the President was unaware.

It seems you are missing many key facts on this issue Don Roley ... but please don't let that stop you from making pronouncements with certitude.

 

[Don Roley]

It seems you are missing many key facts on this issue Don Roley ... but please don't let that stop you from making pronouncements with certitude.

Wow, more rudeness.

So, my pronouncements that this deal is not a threat to American security and such are incorrect? Really?

Or how about the fact that Hillary and the democrats were the ones pushing the issue of the recent vote and the republicans were just trying to avoid being run over?

The world is looking at the US in a new, worse, light due to this. It is sad that some media folks wanted to sell papers and some democrats wanted to score points at the expense of America as a whole.

 

[Lisa]

Second Moderator Note.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
-MT Moderator-

 

[michaeledward]

The world is looking at the US in a new, worse, light due to this. It is sad that some media folks wanted to sell papers and some democrats wanted to score points at the expense of America as a whole.

A "new, worse, light due to this"?

Perhaps you have been unaware of the standing of the United States througout the world during President Bush's term. It would be quite difficult for the standing of the United States over the past five years to deteriorate more that it has.

This ... this is insignificant.

There are real issues that are driving the United States standing in the world down. Most of them seem to start in the Oval Office.

 

[Don Roley]

Mike,
Maybe you missed it when I said it earlier so I will repeat myself.

In the past we always heard about how people in other countries liked American people while disagreeing with it's policies.

Now, due to the fanning of the anti- Arab card by people seeking to do better in the next election, the world looks at polls and are concluding that the majority of American people are rabid bigots.

And as such, they are probably more likely to attack the common American citizen than before.

 

[shesulsa]

House Republicans Defy Bush on Ports Deal

Updated: 6:59 p.m. ET March 8, 2006

WASHINGTON - In a double-barreled repudiation of President Bush, House Republicans pressed legislation Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations while Democrats clamored for a vote on the issue in the Senate.

 

[Don Roley]

Yes,

But there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall’s elections.

The gutless wonders aren't doing it because they think it is the right thing, but rather to avoid getting pasted as being softer on national security than the dems. Both sides know this is not a threat to national security if they bother to check. It is just a way of posturing.

And people wonder why I am so cynical about people claiming to be doing things for my own good.

 

[michaeledward]

Both sides know this is not a threat to national security if they bother to check.

I'm fairly certain I read that the United States Coast Guard would not state that this transaction would not pose a threat. As they are one of the two (or three) groups responsible for port safety, it would seem elected officials are erring on the side of caution. Something the Bush Adminstration has demanded, to the point of violating the Constitution, over the past four and a half years.

Further, many representatives in Congress are reporting waves of incoming phone calls and letters objecting to the transaction. Members of Congress actually responding to their constituents concerns. What next? We actually become a Republic again?

Dear Leader sowed this field of fear. Now we reap the harvest.

 

[Don Roley]

I'm fairly certain I read that the United States Coast Guard would not state that this transaction would not pose a threat.

Do they ever say something to that effect? Security specialists run down by the IHT to a man said that this was no threat to the US.

Bush has not been overstating the threat to America. There are people, even goverments, that want to kill us. That is not the same as saying that all Arabs want to kill us which seems to be the message the world is getting from this. Bush has been working pretty hard to keep the goverments in the region in our camp. It is not an easy thing to do. And this is probably going to set back diplomacy quite a bit. But as long as Bush gets blamed, some people don't care about the long term problems.

Politicians should be doing the right thing. When people are not informed, they should educate. That is not what is happening here.

 

[michaeledward]

Do they ever say something to that effect?

Yes.

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/coastguardintelstmnt.html

Special Coverage: War on Terror
U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence Concerns
Over How DP World’s Proposed Purchase
of P&O Could Affect U.S. Port Security

The undated, unclassified U.S. Coast Guard intelligence assessment on U.S. port security, released by Senator Susan M. Collins (R. - Maine), Chairmain of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. The Coast Guard expressed serious concern about the Dubai-based DP World’s (‘DPW’) proposed takover of security operations for a number of U.S. ports if it buys U.K.-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (‘P&O’), the company currently responsible for signficant U.S. port security operations.

The Coast Guard assessment concluded that “[t]here are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential DWP and P&O ports merger. The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities.”

 

[Don Roley]

Mike,
Your source is not really a news outlet, but seems to be one run as a source for people seeking lawyers. And it seems to have edited out some stuff for it's own agenda. Try the following instead.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060305/1028886.asp

While the Treasury Department, the Department of Homeland Security and Admiral Thomas Gilmour, an assistant commandant with the Coast Guard, assured a congressional panel last week that the Coast Guard's concerns had been addressed and resolved, Collins said she was skeptical that the intelligence gaps could have been closed so quickly.

 

[michaeledward]

Mike,
Your source is not really a news outlet, but seems to be one run as a source for people seeking lawyers. And it seems to have edited out some stuff for it's own agenda. Try the following instead.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060305/1028886.asp

Oh, For ****'s sake ... Google 'COAST GUARD DUBAI'


Next, you'll be claiming Susan Collins is Hillary Clinton in a dark wig.

Also, you post is clearly linked as a 'Editorial' ... Editorials are not news, they are for educating the public.

Next, my 'not really a news outlet' includes quotes from a report to the United States Senate; the report and quotes were released by the Chair of the Senate Department of Homeland Security Committee - a Republican.

Don Roley ... you are wrong .... On this issue, all of the credibility points to the links I have posted.