Author Topic: Classic moment in politics (UAE) (Read 555 times)

Silat · « **on:** February 23, 2006, 05:58:02 PM »

CLASSIC -- my favorite part.....I wonder how the right will spin this to be
Clinton's fault -- what's that shrub? "anyone who offers comfort and aid to
terrorists is complicit in their evil?" Is that so? I guess rules don't
apply when they drop $8 billion on a Carlyle fund...

"At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Sen. Carl
Levin , the ranking Democrat, asked Deputy
Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt if he was aware of the 9-11 commission's
assertion that the United Arab Emirates represents "a persistent
counterterrorism problem"for the United States.

Kimmitt replied that administration figures involved in the decision to
approve the deal "looked very carefully" at information from the
intelligence community.

"Any time a foreign-government controlled company comes in," Kimmitt said,
"the intelligence assessment is of both the country and the company."

"Just raise your hand if anybody talked to the 9-11 commission," Levin told
the administration representatives at the witness table. Nobody raised a
hand."

Toad · « **Reply #1 on:** February 23, 2006, 06:10:20 PM »

Is Michelle Malkin "right"?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2006, 06:35:22 PM »

What's even funnier is that the 9-11 commission is only right when it serves the particular parties intrest.

I also have to ask where is the ACLU and CAIR on this issue. You can't profile habib at an airport but you can profile his entire country? Hipocracy at its finest.

My gut feeling is that this isn't about security at all but union workers jobs and political grandstanding.

eagl · « **Reply #3 on:** February 23, 2006, 06:46:20 PM »

It's not even about union jobs.

The company that's been running those ports has been British for years. The only change is that the company that runs the ports will be moving it's home base from one allied country to another. That's pretty much the only change. They're not going to import thousands of dockworkers, and no Americans are going to lose jobs. On top of that, this company isn't responsible for security anyhow.

On top of THAT, the contract was fairly bid and won and the people in the US responsible for the bidding process are 100% non-political, and the president and his inner circle didn't even know about it until the media and a few congresscritters blew it up out of proportion. So claims that it's croneyism and political money laundering are pretty much BS.

What it comes down to is that in a fair contract competition, one foreign company beat out an incumbent foreign company, and congress went beserk over pretty much nothing. Bush had to weigh in because it would be a HUGE slap in the face against an international trade partner to say that they can't get a non-security related job simply because they're Arabic, not British, and because congress is using their national culture as an excuse to block them from winning a contract from another non-American company.

I'm with Bush on this one, 100%. It's a debate being waged by the ignorant and those with political goals to be gained at the President's and the UAE's expense. It has nothing to do with security or international bribery.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2006, 06:53:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eagl
It's not even about union jobs.

The company that's been running those ports has been British for years. The only change is that the company that runs the ports will be moving it's home base from one allied country to another. That's pretty much the only change. They're not going to import thousands of dockworkers, and no Americans are going to lose jobs. On top of that, this company isn't responsible for security anyhow.

On top of THAT, the contract was fairly bid and won and the people in the US responsible for the bidding process are 100% non-political, and the president and his inner circle didn't even know about it until the media and a few congresscritters blew it up out of proportion. So claims that it's croneyism and political money laundering are pretty much BS.

What it comes down to is that in a fair contract competition, one foreign company beat out an incumbent foreign company, and congress went beserk over pretty much nothing. Bush had to weigh in because it would be a HUGE slap in the face against an international trade partner to say that they can't get a non-security related job simply because they're Arabic, not British, and because congress is using their national culture as an excuse to block them from winning a contract from another non-American company.

I'm with Bush on this one, 100%. It's a debate being waged by the ignorant and those with political goals to be gained at the President's and the UAE's expense. It has nothing to do with security or international bribery.

While I agree that there probably wont be any jobs lost the unions usually cry like babies to the democrats when ever change is in the air.

You bring up a good point as well about a fair bid, I read today that NOT ONE AMERICAN COMPANY bid on the contract. I can't quote the accuracy of the article but it's not really that hard to imagine.

Airscrew · « **Reply #5 on:** February 23, 2006, 06:53:37 PM »

I still stuck on when did the 9-11 Commission become an intelligence source for backgroud checks?

Rolex · « **Reply #6 on:** February 23, 2006, 07:08:20 PM »

~~eagl for taking a big breath (probably) and typing out the reality of this. The ignorance (the lack of understanding of the facts) is beyond belief.~~

eagl · « **Reply #7 on:** February 23, 2006, 07:23:41 PM »

It's not the absolute best analysis of the situation but I think CNN has done a fairly good job of summarizing without sounding too patronizing or cynical.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/index.html

They still come across as making the president look like he has somehow made a mistake somehow, but that's to be expected from most media companies nowadays.

Silat · « **Reply #8 on:** February 23, 2006, 08:39:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rolex
~~eagl for taking a big breath (probably) and typing out the reality of this. The ignorance (the lack of understanding of the facts) is beyond belief.~~

Ahh the reality of it all..
This admin used fear and yelled fire so much that now they are surprised at the xenophobic response of the sheeple?
This response to the sale to a country that has consorted with the terrorists is completely understandable.
Didnt Scrub say , "anyone who offers comfort and aid to
terrorists is complicit in their evil?"
Talk about waffling..................... ......
Stop being so secretive and start being open. Maybe then the public will start to trust an admin that has lied its way to the top. Or is that the bottom.

john9001 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 23, 2006, 08:44:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger

You can't profile habib at an airport but you can profile his entire country? Hipocracy at its finest.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #10 on:** February 23, 2006, 09:08:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Silat

Stop being so secretive and start being open. Maybe then the public will start to trust an admin that has lied its way to the top. Or is that the bottom.

That would NEVER happen. If this admin was against this sale the left would be all for it and you'd see the ACLU crying out discrimination against arabs. You'd have every liberal talking head on the news networks saying the exact same things that the ones that are for it are saying now. This admin has about as much reason to trust the media as the media does to trust them.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 23, 2006, 10:36:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
While I agree that there probably wont be any jobs lost the unions usually cry like babies to the democrats when ever change is in the air.

You bring up a good point as well about a fair bid, I read today that NOT ONE AMERICAN COMPANY bid on the contract. I can't quote the accuracy of the article but it's not really that hard to imagine.

That doesnt surprise me in the least. No one wants to do the "dirty work" anymore. Big companies cant bid it low enough to make money on it and still pay union wages. So they dont even try. It takes alot of infrastructure and money on the side of the company running such an operation just to come in and setup shop. The logistical equipment, hiring and firing, etc. requires a good sized layout of cash. Really, it requires companies with specialized knowledge too, and there just arent that many to do the job.

NattyIced · « **Reply #12 on:** February 23, 2006, 10:53:44 PM »

Perfect time to reduce unemployment - we're going to need better port security. Actually, we have desperately needed it.

I personally have no problems with the UAE, I just don't know who is loading the freight or who is driving the boat. I think it's something below 10% of cargo that gets checked, so let's employ some more for port security - people with a vested interest in not getting this country blown up.