• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

My dear Ranchers.net Republicans:

Help Support Ranchers.net:

that's just plain careless
Click to expand...

No it is careless to let this issue become the smear campaign it has become...ignoring the real issue.....

BTW you never explianed why it is acceptable for a mismanaged foreign company to hold our port management contracts, yet unacceptable for a well-managed foreign company to manage our ports...Just because one is from a country full of people with slightly darker skin.....
 
No I used it correctly, It was used to help seperate the republicans who this thread targeted, and the liberals whom seemed to indicate that President Bush sold our ports to our enemy.........so in it's context it was used correctly......


apparently you haven't read any of the articles linked in this thread. Had you, you would realize this is not a partisan issue since Republicans were leading the way in your "smear campaign".

Despite your great desire to oversimplify this into liberals vs. conservatives, it is not that simple.

For that matter, if you read the thread you would notice that there are several conservatives who have posted that they don't think farming our ports out to a country that has known terror ties is a good idea, either.
 
HMW:
apparently you haven't read any of the articles linked in this thread. Had you, you would realize this is not a partisan issue since Republicans were leading the way in your "smear campaign".
Click to expand...

I did, but did not address the others as they would not read this site or what I posted, so I ignored them in addressing those already on this site.....

HMW:
Despite your great desire to oversimplify this into liberals vs. conservatives, it is not that simple.
Click to expand...

No, it is not simple but if you read the title of the thread it was why we (republicans) are not outraged by Bush selling our ports, and by using a me versus you tactic, I was able to address the smear and to try to eleminate the Smear tactic lead by most democrats and independents on this thread, I had to directly address that by attacking the smear first and presenting the facts, dispite the emotion, politics and misleading comments involved, in an effort to really address the core issue. (foreign ownership of port management contracts)...

Most who have followed to this point (other then those who hate Bush) will see some real facts coming out, and not all the smear, directed against Bush.


For that matter, if you read the thread you would notice that there are several conservatives who have posted that they don't think farming our ports out to a country that has known terror ties is a good idea, either.
Click to expand...

If you had read my posts you would have seen that I addressed foreign ownership in almost every one.......and I stand by that !
 
No, it is not simple but if you read the title of the thread it was why we (republicans) are not outraged by Bush selling our ports
And several piped up and said they were...

"foreign ownership" isn't really the problem. The problem is "foreign ownership" by a country with known terrorist ties.

That's what has Frist and others shook up in Congress. And I tend to think if Bush's allies are worried, that they might be on to something...

That's not "smear", that's common sense.
 
"foreign ownership" isn't really the problem. The problem is "foreign ownership" by a country with known terrorist ties.
Click to expand...

foreign ownership is the problem...the current company has a history of mismangenent and has stripped assets in the past......it's agenda is corperate and it is largely immune to US law....and as of yet there is no evidence that the company buying the management contracts is anything but a good company, based in a country that is currently an ally on the war against terror.....so not allowing the transfer would create a rift between our countires......




so by allowing foreign ownership in the first place. we as a country negleted our responsibility to keep this out of foreign hands....and that is a major part of the issue...

The Saudis are considered an ally in the war on terror also, should we bar them. what about Turkey? Nigeria? Pakastan, Singapore? the list of countries that we are using towards our goal against terror is loaded with countries that could easily turn against US,

I would not want to offend them, nor give them management of our ports.....no more then I would want to give it to a company with a history of mismanagement.....

so either we allow international investment, we bar it selectively, or bar it completly...



Allow me an example:

I own a family ranch.....I lease it to you for 30 years...and ride off to have fun with the money you gave me....then a few years later I find out your not a very good ranch hand, and in fact you have really mismanaged some ranches,,,but what the hell, Iv'e got the money,,,and I could care less it's your problem......

then when I'm sipping pina coladas on the beach I see you have lost your ass,, and sold the lease to,... god forbid an arab.....I am pissed.....

I jump in my lexus rant,...rave...call every body I know and blame the local mayor for letting it happen....how could this happen.......

most of my neighbors agree,even my family is mad at the mayor for letting this happen,.....,the mayor should be tarred and feathered...in a few days they are all for running the arab out of town,,,hell, even his distant cousin is an arab....and he lives in the same town of another arab that was a terrorist.

in fact we should ban the arab from farming to...and damn the mayor how could he let this happen?...

the issue is foreign ownership.......as soon as we allowed one foreign company in we lost our own control.......and now we want to blame someone......

The US should have retained ownership....
 
Wildwood Steve, you done us all proud! :lol:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ann Coulter kind of split from the fold, I thought she was funny, if nothing else.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48958


Wednesday, February 22, 2006

So, 3 Muslims walk into a port ...
By Ann Coulter


The idea that the Democrats have any meaningful interest in America's national security is a joke, so I'm perfectly willing to believe there's more to this port story.

But Bush is going to need a better justification for turning over management of our ports to an Arab country than he's come up with so far – especially now that Jimmy Carter has said it's a good idea. Judging from his life's work to date, Carter's definition of a good idea is "an idea likely to hurt America and/or help its enemies."


Bush's defense of the port deal is to say that "those who are questioning it" need to "step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

First of all, it's not "all of a sudden." The phrase you're searching for, Mr. President, is "ever since the murderous attacks of Sept. 11." The Bush administration's obstinate refusal to profile Middle Easterners has been the one massive gaping hole in national security since the 9-11 attacks – attacks that received indirect support from the United Arab Emirates.

There are at least 3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim emirate should be held to a different standard than a British company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.

Even four years after 9-11, I note that we don't hear Tony Blair condemning some cartoons in a Danish newspaper as "a cultural extremism," or saying their publication represents a "dreadful clash of civilizations."

That was U.A.E. Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs Mohammed Al Dhaheri's recent comment on the great Danish cartoon caper.

So maybe Bush could defend his port deal without insulting our intelligence by asking why anyone might imagine there's any conceivable difference between a British company and a United Arab Emirates company.

President Bush has painted himself into a corner on this issue, and he needs a face-saving compromise to get out of it. Here's my proposal: Let Harriet Miers run the ports.

Isn't it enough that we're already patronizing the savages over the cartoons? Do we have to let them operate our ports, too?

The Bush administration defended Muslims rioting over cartoons, saying, "We certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive." Hey, while they're at it, why don't they invite some Muslim leaders with well-known ties to terrorism to the White House for a reception? Oh wait, I forgot ... They did that right after 9-11. Yes, now I see why we must turn over our ports to the United Arab Emirates.

The University of Illinois has suspended editors of the student newspaper, The Daily Illini, for republishing the cartoons – even though the kiss-ass editors ran a column accompanying the cartoons denouncing them as "bigoted and insensitive."

That was still not enough for Richard Herman, the chancellor of the university, who wrote a letter to the editor saying that he was "saddened" by the publication of the cartoons. You want sad? The University of Illinois' sports teams are known as the "Fighting Illini." Now they're going to have to change it to the "Surrendering Illini."

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly refuses to show the cartoons on "The O'Reilly Factor," saying he doesn't want to offend anyone's religion. Someone should tell him those endless interviews with prostitutes from the Bunny Ranch and porn stars aren't high on Christians' list of enjoyable viewing either. (How about adding Prophet Muhammad cartoon T-shirts and fleece tops to his vast collection of "Factor gear"? Isn't Father's Day right around the corner? I'd buy those.)

Needless to say, the Treason Times won't show the cartoons that have incited mass rioting around the globe. At least the New York Times has a good excuse: It's too busy printing national security secrets that will get Americans killed. Its pages are already brimming with classified information about our techniques for spying on terrorists here in America – no room for newsworthy cartoons! The Pentagon Papers and a top-secret surveillance program are one thing; cartoons that irritate Muslims are quite another.


Two days after the Times editorial page justified its decision not to reprint the cartoons as "a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words," the Times ran a photo of the Virgin Mary covered in cutouts from pornographic magazines and cow dung – which I seem to have just described using a handful of common words! Gee, that was easy!

Taking to heart the lesson that violence works, I hereby announce to the world: I am offended by hotel windows that don't open, pilots chattering when the passengers are trying to sleep, and Garfield cartoons. Next time my sleep is disturbed by gibberish about our altitude over Kansas, the National Pilots Emirate embassy is going down. And mark my words: One minute after "Garfield II" goes into pre-production, some heads are gonna roll. Oh – and I'll take the San Diego port, please.
 
Hmmm...still makes me a little nervous. Do you suppose the media would have picked up on this earlier if something so incredibly important as :roll: Cheney shooting a lawyer hadn't dominated the headlines?

Fact Sheet: The CFIUS Process And The DP World Transaction

"If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward. The company has been cooperative with the United States government. The company will not manage port security. The security of our ports will continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and Customs. The company is from a country that has been cooperative in the war on terror, been an ally in the war on terror. The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo has been sent to the United States on a regular basis."

- President George W. Bush, February 21, 2006

President Bush Strongly Supports The Decision To Move Forward With The DP World Transaction

The Administration, As Required By Law, Has Reviewed The Transaction To Make Certain That It Does Not In Any Way Jeopardize National Security. Under the process conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), officials carefully reviewed the national security issues raised by the transaction and its effect on our national security. Twelve Federal agencies and the government's counterterrorism experts closely and carefully reviewed the transaction to make certain it posed no threat to national security.

DP World Has Provided Strong Security Assurances To The United States. DP World has signed a letter of assurances making commitments to meet and maintain security standards for the port terminals that they will own and operate in the United States. There are a number of safeguards that are in place in the agreement, and the American people should feel confident that the transaction will in no way harm the security of the Nation's ports.

DP World's Bid For The London-Based Peninsular And Oriental (P&O) Steam Navigation Company Was Announced Last Fall. DP World, a UAE-based commercial entity, is purchasing the U.S. subsidiary of the London-based P&O Steam Navigation Company. The announcement of DP World's bid for P&O was made in November 2005, and the news was widely reported in the press and international financial trade publications. The formal CFIUS process was set into motion in December, and the Federal government conducted a thorough review to ensure that port security would in no way be compromised by the deal.

The Administration Has Taken A Principled Position Based On The Security Of Our Nation And Careful Review Of The Transaction. The President has made clear that he stands firmly behind the decision to allow the DP World transaction to move forward. Preventing this transaction by a reputable company to go forward after careful review would send a terrible signal to friends and allies that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world are not welcome.

The Port Security Of the United States Is The Administration's First And Foremost Concern

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Is Always In Charge Of The Nation's Port Security, Not The Private Company That Operates Facilities Within The Ports. Nothing will change with this transaction. DHS, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and other Federal agencies, sets the standards for port security and ensures that all port facility owners and operators comply with these standards.

The Transaction Is Not About Port Security Or Even Port Ownership, But Only About Operations In Port. DP World will not manage port security, nor will it own any ports. DP World would take on the functions now performed by the British firm P&O - basically the off- and on-loading of cargo. Employees will still have to be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. No private company currently manages any U.S. port. Rather, private companies such as P&O and DP World simply manage and operate individual terminals within ports.

Background On The CFIUS Process

The CFIUS Process Was Rigorously Followed, And CFIUS Agencies Carefully Reviewed The Transaction. Ensuring the protection of our national security is the top priority of all members of CFIUS. In reviewing a foreign transaction, CFIUS brings together 12 Federal agencies with diverse expertise to consider transactions from a variety of perspectives and identify and analyze all national security issues.

The Department of the Treasury, which chairs CFIUS, receives notices of transactions, serves as the contact point for the private sector, establishes a calendar for review of each transaction, and coordinates the interagency process.

During the initial 30-day review, each CFIUS member agency conducts its own internal analysis of the national security implications of the transaction under review. CFIUS also consults with the intelligence community. In this case, the Departments of Transportation and Energy were also brought in to widen the scope and add to the expertise of the CFIUS agencies involved in the review process.

All CFIUS decisions are made by consensus of the entire committee. The review process allows any agency that sees a potential credible threat to the national security to raise those concerns.

In the course of the review of this transaction, DHS reached an agreement with DP World to mitigate security concerns.

DP World Has Played By The Rules, Has Cooperated With The United States, And Is From A Country That Is A Close Ally In the War on Terror. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been a solid partner in the War on Terror. The UAE has been extremely cooperative on counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation and has provided considerable support to U.S. forces in the Gulf and to the governments and people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The UAE Is A Partner In Shutting Down Terror Finance Networks. The UAE has worked with us to stop terrorist financing and money laundering, including by freezing accounts, enacting aggressive anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws and regulations, and exchanging information on people and entities suspected of being involved in those actions.

The UAE Is An Established Partner In Protecting America's Ports. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (CSI) - a multinational program to protect global trade from terrorism. Dubai was also the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Department of Energy's Megaports Initiative, a program aimed at stopping illicit shipments of nuclear and other radioactive material.

Port Security Begins Abroad. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) created the CSI to enable CBP to inspect 100% of high-risk containers at foreign seaports before they are loaded onboard vessels destined for the United States. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join CSI. Cooperation with Dubai has been outstanding and a model for other operations.

DP World currently manages 19 container terminals and has operations in 14 countries. The United States government has a strong working relationship with DP World.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060222-11.html
 
Try this one out.
:)
http://www.nysun.com/article/27936

I find the deal between the UAE and the clinton gore administration in May of '98 pretty interresting. Who on here was as outraged then as they are now? :shock:

Just another case of playing politics I guess. Dare I say hypocrite??? It's funny how that word always seems to come to mind when dealing with these people.

Since more information has come out about this subject does anyone care to change their position on it? Either way? I know when it first came out many saw it as an opportunity to finally get Bush, but .....? :?
 
You couldn't " get Bush" with a Judegement Day hammer!!!

The family has too many connections spread far and wide...and there's always been some close by to pull his nutz outta the fire and that's not about to change anytime soon.

Gotta hand it to him..... nothing will stick to him
 
Has anyone caught how Bush has back-peddled a bit on his whole, "No negotiation. I'll veto any attempt to pause to examine this idea!" position from Tuesday to one of, "well maybe we could pause to discuss the idea..." :roll:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13945797.htm
"Apparently bowing to congressional pressure, a top White House aide said Thursday that President Bush would accept a delay in the deal for a United Arab Emirates-owned company to manage terminals at six major U.S. ports in order to give skeptical lawmakers more time to study it."
 
Has anyone caught how Bush has back-peddled a bit on his whole, "No negotiation. I'll veto any attempt to pause to examine this idea!" position from Tuesday to one of, "well maybe we could pause to discuss the idea..."
Click to expand...

maybe this is why compromise is so tough,,,,when Bush concedes to allow more time for the decision and calm to set in he is "back peddling".

I am all for calling it what it is "a forced compromise", but why negotiate at all if every time you do it gets taken as a weakness? or a flaw such as back peddling?

if your going to be wrong no matter what why compromise at all?
 
Steve said:
maybe this is why compromise is so tough,,,,when Bush concedes to allow more time for the decision and calm to set in he is "back peddling".
Click to expand...

When your "liberals" do it, it's called "flip-flopping". Tomato, tomah-to...

I find it interesting that you think it's a weakness when I thought it was being forced to see reason. The Congressional reps who were up in arms about this made it clear they were pretty sure they had the votes to over-ride a veto...


"Oh... well, maybe we could pause to discuss..."
 
Much ado about nothing. Damn shame. Criticism to go around from me. Seems as if some Republicans have given in to a kneejerk reaction for political reasons. I guess that's why they did it. They sure didn't try to listen to the facts first. And the President probably could have/should have done a better job in how this was handled. It seems as if he gets bad advice from time to time on how to handle things from a political standpoint. I doubt if we'll ever see him put political concerns first, though. Thank God! :D

Strange the hypocrisy of the Dems, though. They don't want racial profiling of young arab males getting on airplanes. But entire countries is okay? Huh? They whine and complain about too much government when the NSA needs to listen to Al Quaeda calling, but they want the government to have a say in legitimate business deals? Huh?

It's too bad that Tommy Franks isn't getting more press with his thoughts on this issue. My emphasis; link below. :D

Former CENTCOM commanding general Tommy Franks said Wednesday that the Bush administration was right to approve a deal for a United Arab Emirates-based company to run six major U.S. ports.

"We have more U.S. Navy ships using the port in Dubai, Jebel Ali, than any other port outside the United States," Franks told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

The former Iraq war commander explained U.S. reliance on the Dubai port facility by saying, "We know the difference between an enemy and a friend."

"The Emirates is a friend," Franks aid. "That is the best run port that I've ever seen."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/22/221135.shtml?s=ic
 
X said:
Much ado about nothing. Damn shame. Criticism to go around from me. Seems as if some Republicans have given in to a kneejerk reaction for political reasons. I guess that's why they did it. They sure didn't try to listen to the facts first. And the President probably could have/should have done a better job in how this was handled. It seems as if he gets bad advice from time to time on how to handle things from a political standpoint. I doubt if we'll ever see him put political concerns first, though. Thank God! :D

Strange the hypocrisy of the Dems, though. They don't want racial profiling of young arab males getting on airplanes. But entire countries is okay? Huh? They whine and complain about too much government when the NSA needs to listen to Al Quaeda calling, but they want the government to have a say in legitimate business deals? Huh?

It's too bad that Tommy Franks isn't getting more press with his thoughts on this issue. My emphasis; link below. :D

Former CENTCOM commanding general Tommy Franks said Wednesday that the Bush administration was right to approve a deal for a United Arab Emirates-based company to run six major U.S. ports.

"We have more U.S. Navy ships using the port in Dubai, Jebel Ali, than any other port outside the United States," Franks told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

The former Iraq war commander explained U.S. reliance on the Dubai port facility by saying, "We know the difference between an enemy and a friend."

"The Emirates is a friend," Franks aid. "That is the best run port that I've ever seen."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/22/221135.shtml?s=ic
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll take 40 lashes with a wet noodle for having some initial misgivngs. Interesting Fair and Balanced debate on Fox this morning helped make my mind up. And Hillary is POed, gotta love it.
 
stevec said:
X said:
Much ado about nothing. Damn shame. Criticism to go around from me. Seems as if some Republicans have given in to a kneejerk reaction for political reasons.
Click to expand...

No, it was just fear. Fear is real, and it drives the politics on both sides.

"the terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming" and then people get on their horse and gallop off. Panic comes over people like a wave direct from Hell.
Click to expand...
BS, like always. The actual facts regarding this issue were very slow getting out, and I'm blaming the Administration and the media, so what's left...speculation.
 
Your "initial misgivings" are called fear. Why do you blame others for your lack of judgment?
Click to expand...
Well exscuuuuse me for not jumping on the bandwagon until more info was available and the issue had been discussed and debated. I believe it's called healthy skepticism.
 
stevec said:
Cal said:
Your "initial misgivings" are called fear. Why do you blame others for your lack of judgment?
Click to expand...
Well exscuuuuse me for not jumping on the bandwagon until more info was available and the issue had been discussed and debated. I believe it's called healthy skepticism.
Click to expand...

Yes, except the same sources who told you it was a bad idea are the same sources that told you it is okay. (The media generically.) All you did was follow where they led you.

You are not reading between the lines.

If anything, this story shows how weak the American economy really is. Not only have we outsourced everything being made, we no longer control the ports when it comes in. Phone calls are already routed overseas.

Since you are in the food producing industry, (the original industry) maybe you think you are immune to what is going on. But eventually no one will be able to purchase what you are producing. These political debates in the newspapers are meaningless. It's like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.

The only way to get the fear and redundancy out of our politics is for everyone to recognize the fear and redundancy. Partisan squabbles leave all the serious work undone.

If America's security apparatus could not prevent 9/11, then you can be sure that the apparatus is equally ineffective today. The words are meaningless that are being offered.

I am not worried about the security issue, I am worried about the cause of the conflict. Address the issues behind the conflict and you solve the problem.
Click to expand...
I can't believe I just wasted my time reading this nonsense.
 

Latest posts

Top