Almost as good as how all of you fuckers never heard about this, but once you heard that it was Bush Administration policy, it was a bad idea. Idiots.PSUFAN wrote:I love how he didn't even know about it but once he finally did, he was sure it was a good idea. Idiot.
Boxer's rebellion
February 26, 2006
EVEN AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION promotes free trade and economic growth as a counter to extremism in the Middle East and elsewhere, some members of Congress appear determined to send a different message: America is happy to use your nation as a staging ground or refueling station for its military adventures, but we don't trust you enough to trade with you. And among the members of Congress conveying this impression most loudly is the junior senator from California, Barbara Boxer.
Dubai Ports World, which is based in the United Arab Emirates, agreed last week to delay the acquisition of the U.S. terminals included in its purchase of a British cargo operations company while the administration gives Congress time to study the deal. Too much delay, or outright rejection, would tarnish this country's international reputation, but that's nothing compared to the damage that could be wrought by the ongoing hysteria in Congress.
No one can dispute that the UAE is a key ally, that the deal has been vetted by the Department of Homeland Security and that it would have no effect on government security operations at the six ports where Ports World would run terminals. The objections to the deal are more rooted in a general mistrust and lack of confidence in the Bush administration.
As well-founded as these concerns may be, they're not the kind of thing that is addressed through legislation such as that proposed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). Their bill would block companies owned by foreign governments from buying U.S. port operators. If that's what they're really worried about, then they're too late. Some of the world's biggest shipping companies, including China Ocean Shipping (better known as Cosco) and Singapore's APL, both of which have a major presence at California ports, are government-owned. Many of the rest have complex relationships with their home governments, making it very difficult to determine which are state-owned.
This brouhaha is reminiscent of 1998, when Cosco proposed moving from its berth at the Port of Long Beach to a shuttered naval station on the other side of the port that was being converted to a container terminal. Congress, fearing the company was a front for Chinese spies, scotched the deal.
It remains mystifying why anyone would consider a closed naval station, its buildings demolished and equipment long gone, to be a more effective platform for spying than Cosco's present terminal. But opponents of the Cosco deal, mostly Republicans, won a political victory over the Clinton administration.
Now there is a Republican in the White House, and of all the grandstanding surrounding the Dubai Ports World deal, none tops Boxer's performance. She said last week that she would support legislation preventing any foreign firm, state-owned or not, from buying port operators. Memo to Boxer: 13 of the 14 container terminals at the ports of L.A. and Long Beach, the biggest port complex in the U.S., are run by foreign-owned companies. She later told The Times that she meant such deals should get greater scrutiny, not be banned. Still, this is the sort of proposal one would expect from a senator from a land-locked state like Vermont, not one where international trade plays a vital role in the economy. The Clinton-Menendez bill, which Boxer is backing, would do little more than disrupt port operations and attract international protest.
Boxer had a more enlightened view in 1998, when she supported the Cosco move. She now borrows a line from George W. Bush and says the world has changed since 9/11, but that still doesn't explain why she supported terminal operations run by a foreign government-owned company eight years ago but now distrusts any foreign operator whether it comes from a country involved in terrorism or not.
One possible explanation is that the Cosco deal was heavily backed by a Democratic administration, while the Dubai Ports World deal is heavily backed by a Republican administration. But that would mean Boxer is working against the interests of her state in order to score cheap political points. She would never do such a thing. Would she?
Bullshit.mvscal wrote:FYI, there is no question of Iraqi and AQ connections.
And btw, . . .Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."
But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."
As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.
Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), sought to profit from the commission's finding. "The administration misled America, and the administration reached too far," Kerry told Michigan Public Radio. "I believe that the 9/11 report, the early evidence, is that they're going to indicate that we didn't have the kind of terrorists links that this administration was asserting. I think that's a very, very serious finding."
A Bush campaign spokesman countered that Kerry himself has said Hussein "supported and harbored terrorist groups." And Cheney's spokesman pointed to a 2002 letter written by CIA Director George J. Tenet stating that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Cheney's office also pointed to a 2003 Tenet statement calling Zarqawi "a senior al Qaeda terrorist associate."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the commission finding of long-standing high-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq justified the administration's earlier assertions. "We stand behind what was said publicly," he said.
Bush, speaking to troops in Tampa yesterday, did not mention an Iraq-al Qaeda link, saying only that Iraq "sheltered terrorist groups." That was a significantly milder version of the allegations administration officials have made since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.
Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."
In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Speaking about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and "probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." He added: "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."
Shortly after Cheney asserted these links, Bush contradicted him, saying: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th." But Bush added: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
In January, Cheney repeated his view that Iraq was tied to al Qaeda, saying that "there's overwhelming evidence" of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. He said he was "very confident there was an established relationship there."
The commission staff, in yesterday's report, said that while bin Laden was in Sudan between 1991 and 1996, a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan, and that he had a meeting with bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden was reported to have sought training camps and assistance in getting weapons, "but Iraq never responded," the staff said. The report said that bin Laden "at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan."
As for the Atta meeting in Prague mentioned by Cheney, the commission staff concluded: "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred." It cited FBI photographic and telephone evidence, along with Czech and U.S. investigations, as well as reports from detainees, including the Iraqi official with whom Atta was alleged to have met. On the 1993 trade center bombing, the staff found "substantial uncertainty" about whether bin Laden and al Qaeda were involved.
At yesterday's hearing, commissioner Fred F. Fielding questioned the staff's finding of no apparent cooperation between bin Laden and Hussein. He pointed to a sentence in the first sealed indictment in 2001 of the al Qaeda members accused of the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; that sentence said al Qaeda reached an understanding with Iraq that they would not work against each other and would cooperate on acquiring arms.
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superceding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand.
The staff report on Iraq was brief. Though not confirming any Iraqi collaboration with al Qaeda, it did not specifically address two of the other pieces of evidence the administration has offered to link Iraq to al Qaeda: Zarqawi's Tawhid organization and the Ansar al-Islam group.
In October 2002, Bush described Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, as "one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks."
Zarqawi wrote a January 2003 letter to bin Laden's lieutenants, intercepted at the Iraqi border, saying that if al Qaeda adopted his approach in Iraq, he would swear "fealty to you [bin Laden] publicly and in the news media."
In March, in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tenet described Zarqawi's network as among groups having "links" to al Qaeda but with its own "autonomous leadership . . . own targets [and] they plan their own attacks."
Although Zarqawi may have cooperated with al Qaeda in the past, officials said it is increasingly clear that he has been operating independently of bin Laden's group and has his own network of operatives.
The other group, Ansar al-Islam, began in 2001 among Kurdish Sunni Islamic fundamentalists in northern Iraq, fighting against the two secular Kurdish groups that operated under the protection of the United States. At one point, bin Laden supported Ansar, as did Zarqawi, who is believed to have visited their area more than once. Tenet referred to Ansar as one of the Sunni groups that had benefited from al Qaeda links.[/b]
Nice moving of the goalposts. You'll recall that the original quote I posted wasPut up a direct link to an administration official claiming a direct link between the 9/11 attack and Iraq or go fuck yourself.
Emphasis added. This, of course, includes not only Bush Administration officials, but also Bush Administration apologists in the media, including the Washington Times, Fox News, Rush Limpbone, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Liely, Sean Insanity, etc., etc.Terry in Crapchester wrote:Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, yet the Bush Administration, or at least its proxies, succeeded in convincing at least a vocal minority of Americans that it did.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
A) Since when does stating the obvious make you a 'Bush administration proxy'?Terry in Crapchester wrote:Bullshit.mvscal wrote:FYI, there is no question of Iraqi and AQ connections.Emphasis added. This, of course, includes not only Bush Administration officials, but also Bush Administration apologists in the media, including the Washington Times, Fox News, Rush Limpbone, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Liely, Sean Insanity, etc., etc.Terry in Crapchester wrote:Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, yet the Bush Administration, or at least its proxies, succeeded in convincing at least a vocal minority of Americans that it did.
Who to believe, the Washington Post and 9/11 Commission, or some anonymous internet poster who goes with a racial epithet (regardless of how appropriate it is) whenever he can't refute something?mvscal wrote:You can shove that lying bullshit straight up your ass. I've read the entire report. You haven't....obviously.Terry in Crapchester wrote:Bullshit.mvscal wrote:FYI, there is no question of Iraqi and AQ connections.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
a toughie all right.......Terry in Crapchester wrote: Who to believe, the Washington Post and 9/11 Commission, or some anonymous internet poster who goes with a racial epithet (regardless of how appropriate it is) whenever he can't refute something?
Decisions, decisions . . .
trust me, if the connection existed Bush and Company would be trumpeting it 24 hours a day, 7 days of the week, 365 days of the year.....mvscal wrote:
This is all just a choice about whom to believe, right? Obviously finding out the truth of the matter for yourself by reading the actual report is totally out of question.
Exactly. In fact, the Contractions dept. is pretty busy these days.Felix wrote:trust me, if the connection existed Bush and Company would be trumpeting it 24 hours a day, 7 days of the week, 365 days of the year.....mvscal wrote:
This is all just a choice about whom to believe, right? Obviously finding out the truth of the matter for yourself by reading the actual report is totally out of question.
but they don't....why do you suppose that is?
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
excellent response.....just the kind of gibberish I've come to expect from you.....mvscal wrote:Just shut the fuck up, moron. Who the fuck do you think you're kidding? Have you been paying any attention at all?Felix wrote:trust me, if the connection existed Bush and Company would be trumpeting it 24 hours a day, 7 days of the week, 365 days of the year.....
but they don't....why do you suppose that is?
what "recollections" are you referring to mook......If your recollections of the last two or three years are too burdensome on your three remaining brain cells at least try the last two pages of this thread.
Dave stutters like I'm Jewish. You're 2 for 2 in this thread, fraudocal.mvscal wrote:Yuh-yuh-yuh-yep. Wuh-wuh-why are yu--yu-you t-t-t-trying to ch-ch-change the suh-suh-subject?PSUFAN wrote:So you want to believe shutyomouth and RtS that I stutter -
Van wrote:It's like rimming an unbathed fat chick from Missouri. It's highly distinctive, miserably unforgettable and completely wrong.
m m m m mazeltov, ass-g g g g gobblers.RadioFan wrote:Dave stutters like I'm Jewish. You're 2 for 2 in this thread, fraudocal.mvscal wrote:Yuh-yuh-yuh-yep. Wuh-wuh-why are yu--yu-you t-t-t-trying to ch-ch-change the suh-suh-subject?PSUFAN wrote:So you want to believe shutyomouth and RtS that I stutter -
heh heh. mvpretzel's had a rough thread of it.sheikh browneye.
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... dt.01.htmlDOBBS: President Bush's family and members of the Bush administration have long-standing business connections with the United Arab Emirates, and those connections are raising new concerns and questions tonight in some quarters about why the president is defying his very own party leadership and his party in defending the Dubai port deal.
CHRISTINE ROMANS: The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is a major investor in The Carlyle Group, the private equity investment firm where President Bush's father once served as senior adviser and is a who's who of former high-level government officials. Just last year, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8 billion Carlyle fund.
Another family connection, the president's brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his educational software company from the UAE investors. A call to his company was not returned.
Then there is the cabinet connection. Treasury Secretary John Snow was chairman of railroad company CSX/. After he left the company for the White House, CSX sold its international port operations to Dubai Ports World for more than a billion dollars.
In Connecticut today, Snow told reporters he had no knowledge of that CSX sale. "I learned of this transaction probably the same way members of the Senate did, by reading about it in the newspapers."
Another administration connection, President Bush chose a Dubai Ports World executive to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. David Sanborn, the former director of Dubai Ports' European and Latin American operations, he was tapped just last month to lead the agency that oversees U.S. port operations.
Holy shit, if Dubai Ports has assured us, then it must be okay......Press Release Date: Feb. 27, 2006
Contact: Cmdr. Jeff Carter
(202) 267-1933
STATEMENT BY COAST GUARD SPOKESMAN CMDR. JEFF CARTER ON COAST GUARD PORT TRANSACTION ANALYSIS
WASHINGTON - "What is being quoted is an excerpt of a broader Coast Guard intelligence analysis that was performed early on as part of its due diligence process. The excerpts made public earlier today, when taken out of context, do not reflect the full, classified analysis performed by the Coast Guard. That analysis concludes ‘that DP World's acquisition of P&O, in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in [continental United States] ports.’ Upon subsequent and further review, the Coast Guard and the entire CFIUS panel believed that this transaction, when taking into account strong security assurances by DP World, does not compromise U.S. security."
https://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/786/111524/
Why? Because YOU say so?mvscal wrote:I guess you know more about then the Coast Guard, right?
It's way past time for you fuck ups to come correct and admit that you didn't and don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
Come correct about what--objecting to Bush turning over controll of 6 of our busiest ports to an Arab owned corporation? Fuck off.mvscal wrote:I guess you know more about then the Coast Guard, right?
It's way past time for you fuck ups to come correct and admit that you didn't and don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Nobody said they were anything other than what they claim to be....but frankly, they have no vested interest in the safety of those 6 ports.....they're strictly business remember.DPW is a legitimate business. They are one of largest operators in world with a global footprint not some ramshackle terrorist front company like you retarded douchebags seem to believe.
Their "vested interest" would be rebuilt at taxpayer expense and you fucking well know that. Any time a business of that size loses money, the feds can't step in with their subsidies fast enough.mvscal wrote:If their terminals are exploited by a terrorist attack it is going to be their assets which are destroyed. This is to say nothing of the effect of consumer confidence on the rest of their operations around the world and/or any possible legal liability. Their "vested interest" in the safety of those six ports alone runs in the billions if not tens of billions.
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
now that's funny....especially coming from you of all peoplemvscal wrote: You're a hypocritical bigot, I've understood this about you for quite a long time.
Reminder, they are not "their terminals" they are our terminals. And what "assets" are you talking about?If their terminals are exploited by a terrorist attack it is going to be their assets which are destroyed.
Wait a minute, didn't you tell me they have no control over the safety of our ports? How could anybody hold them accountable for something they have no control over? And as far as their "billions" go, maybe you can outline a list of their fixed assets in these ports.This is to say nothing of the effect of consumer confidence on the rest of their operations around the world and/or any possible legal liability. Their "vested interest" in the safety of those six ports alone runs in the billions if not tens of billions.
What, no "you don't know what the fuck you're talking about"......dude, you're slippingIt's true I already had a very low opinion of your intellectual ability, but this latest stupidity is off the charts. You're edging into Dungflinger scale imbecility.
You're right, every rational thinking person I've ever encountered typically reacts with a "fuck you, we're doing this and if you try and stop me I'll fuck you all over". That's the kind of free exchange of ideas that's lead us to where we are today.......There is nothing kneejerk about it. They are our most critical ally in the Gulf and one of the most strategically vital countries on the face of the Earth.
I don't know, what's been Bushes typical reaction when somebody tells him to get fucked.......nevermind, see the previous response.What are we going to do when the next time the Fifth Fleet comes to call at Dubai and they tell us to get fucked?
Hey, you're getting a little ahead of yourself pawds...we've got civil war brewing in Iraq and something tells me that's going to take up an enormous amount of our military resources....lets see if we can finish what Bush started before we start invading......er....preemptive striking.....er.....spreading freedom to another middle eastern countryOr evict us from the airbases we need to support operations in Iraq or dominate the Straits of Hormuz in the increasingly likely event of open hostilities with Iran?
Spot-on... so to speakmvscal wrote:Now we're getting somewhere. Check your pants.PSUFAN wrote:It's not real difficult to follow the trail of shit in this one.
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
Now follow along here whitey........War Wagon wrote: Perhaps the $6.8 billion they are spending for the right to operate these ports might be considered an asset, ya' think?
Yes, we all know you qualify.......Idiot
Sorry buddy, but that post was for Plant Manager Whitey who seems to be struggling with basic economics....mvscal wrote: Thanks for clearing that up.
Frankly, I'm amazed that you can breathe unassisted.
After they buy the rights to control said operations, they get paid to run them. That's what you meant to say, right?Felix wrote:
You see, companies like Dubai Ports don't pay to operate ports, they are paid to run them.
