Good idea? Bad idea?

“Stupid Idea.
It will not happen.”
StoveStomper
11:52:14 PM

Forgot this one, Buddha!”

“Funny how in the last 6 years Bush hasn't vetoed one single thing and now all of a sudden he's saying hill veto. I also heard that the review proccess was not properly done due to the fact that a 45 day review is needed when another country is considered for a job that could effect our security. They only gave it a 25 day review.

If I was a cogressional leader I'd be camping in my seat at the capitol building because ya know the far right will try one of those Friday after hours votes after everyone has left for the weekend.”

“Only thing I can figure is the company is a British one, and it's payback time to Tony Blair.”

“By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
40 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_34;_ylt=Au2i0o6VYVgLHPg9U3osgI8Tv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl”

“But Cheney did, no?







:p”

“I'm glad to see that the Kool-Aid drinking Bush apologists have come out on the right side of this.”

“oops sorry about that long link but it should please SS..lol”

“Why Ewker?
You are clueless as usual! LOL

As I stated in this thread that you didn't bother to read, I'm against the selling of the port operations.
last edited: 2/22/06 12:27:32 PM”

“The question is, who told SS to be against the port deal and why?”

“I did it and it was just a trick to deflect attention from my attempt to corner the market on Hi-Karate futures.”

“It would seem that many of us have been suckered once again by the media into kneejerk reactions. First off, the assertion that this has been a secret deal that is being pushed through super fast to trick everyone is bullcrap. The deal was started and reported on in October of last year. From what I have heard nothing at all will change with the ports other than where the checks dock workers get come from.

*dock workers will be the same American workers (albeit union)
*the same Brits will be managing
*security will not change at all and will STILL be handled by the Coast Guard and Customs

I still think it should be more clearly investigated so all the facts are known. I have a feeling though that a lot of people on both sides of the isle are going to feel pretty silly.”

“Who gives a #&%!$, it's gonna happen anyway, so I don't figure I will have much of an impact to get worked up on this one.

Now, for more important things, what should I have for lunch, sushi or mexican?”

“That's in direct conflict with this article, Nigal.


Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement

AP -
The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
[...]
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
[...]
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/22/D8FUHNM00.html


So much for the "they would have nothing to do with port security" argument.”

“According to an interview with Tom Kean, 9-11 Commission Chairman and my former Governor, published in my local paper, this is not going to happen, chili.”

“Here it is:

Why the port deal is sunk
Thursday, February 23, 2006

Former Gov. Tom Kean headed the national commission that investigated what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, and issued recommendations to improve homeland security. In a telephone conversation with Star- Ledger columnist Fran Wood yesterday, Kean discussed President Bush's plan to allow the sale of a London company to Dubai Ports World, which is based in the United Arab Emirates. If the sale goes through, DP World will be in charge of some of the shipping operations at ports in New York and New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami.


Is there any good argument for allowing an Arab country to control some vital functions at our ports?

There may be some arguments, but they're immaterial because it's not going to happen. Whether through (Gov. Jon) Corzine and (Gov. George) Pataki, the two governors who control the Port of New York and New Jersey, or through those who control Congress who are against it or through the president changing his mind -- or through Dubai Ports World backing out -- it's not going to happen. People should have seen that from day one.

Why won't it happen?

Because, regardless of how able or honest or secure this firm is, the United Arab Emirates spawned two of the hijackers, they were the place through which the money was laundered to pay for 9/11 and the symbolism of a firm owned by that government now having control over cargo coming into the U.S. -- well, people can't stomach that. That should have been obvious from the first time it was brought up.

Much of the national reaction is a reflection of the 9/11 commission's assessment of our ports as an area of risk. Is that still the case?

One of our great vulnerabilities is the way cargo comes into this country. We now inspect a little better than 5 percent because more cargo is now being checked at various ports around the world before it gets to this country. But we still haven't enough of the cargo screened, and we still don't have enough of the necessary devices set up in our ports. The technology is there, but it's not in place.

From what we know of Dubai Ports World, is it a responsible company -- and if it is, should that make a difference?

It is a responsible company from everything I know. Should that make a difference? Yes. Will it? No, because of the symbolism and the political reality. This deal should have been killed when it was first suggested.

Is this one of those issues that's just too emotional for rational discussion?

Yes. Politically, certain things are very hard to argue. You can make the case, in about 20 minutes perhaps, why the deal should be considered. You can make an argument in about 30 seconds why it shouldn't, and people are going to buy that argument.

Will the outcome of this issue have an impact on the fight against terrorism?

It's not going to have a good impact. We have now embarrassed the United Arab Emirates. The president is right when he says they are a strong ally in the war on terror. But the issue has given rise to a whole bunch of demagogues who are talking it to death, and people in the Middle East who read those comments are going to be even madder at the U.S. As a result, we'll now be perceived as being even more unfair to the Arab nations.

I can understand the State Department having a bad idea, but to have this deal signed off on and supported by the president was a mistake. The deal will not go through. It will be stopped. But everybody involved in the process is going to be embarrassed -- everyone except those trying to make political capital out of it.

What were some of the missteps that occurred? For instance, should the Bush administration have informed Congress while the deal was still under discussion? Should the states in which the affected ports are located have been informed?

The governors should have been informed because they control the ports. In this area, that would be Corzine and Pataki. They should not have been blindsided. Second, the congressmen in the affected areas should have been informed. The reaction from those congressmen and governors might have stopped this deal early on -- before we were embarrassed internationally, as we are now.

What does this say about our foreign policy?

In this case, it says we were stupid. I can't think of a better word. It's possible that there are things going on we don't know about. Because the Arab Emirates are our allies in the war on terror, it's possible that, as we speak, they are doing some things to help us out, and this deal was a way of saying thank you. If that's the case, it was, again, stupid because it will end up embarrassing everybody -- the governors, the Emirates, the Congress, the president, everybody.

If Dubai Ports World does not get the contract to manage the U.S. ports in question, how will that affect our relationship efforts with Arab countries?

We know how we look at it from this area, but think about how the Arab world is looking at it. This is a legitimate company that was granted a deal legitimately, and now our public reaction against Arabs having control of our cargo is going to lose them the deal. In their minds, they will see that as prejudicial. This is a considerable embarrassment to the United States government, but it's a self-inflicted wound. We never should have allowed it to get to this stage. The only people enjoying this are the politicians who are demagoguing it.


http://www.nj.com/opinion/ledger/perspective/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1140710104226730.xml&coll=1”

“If UAE is such a bad country why was it OK for Clinton to sell them 14 fighter jets?”

“Wasn't that before they laundered money for 911 and supplied two of the terrorists?”

“This section of the 9-11 report might help answer your question and many others, Nigal: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

Specifically:

Early in 1999, the CIA received reporting that Bin Ladin was spending much of his time at one of several camps in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar. At the beginning of February, Bin Ladin was reportedly located in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp, a desert hunting camp being used by visitors from a Gulf state. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab Emirates.

Reporting from the CIA's assets provided a detailed description of the hunting camp, including its size, location, resources, and security, as well as of Bin Ladin's smaller, adjacent camp. Because this was not in an urban area, missiles launched against it would have less risk of causing collateral damage. On February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike. The next day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Ladin's quarters could not be pinned down so precisely.
[...]
No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by. Clarke told us the strike was called off after consultations with Director Tenet because the intelligence was dubious, and it seemed to Clarke as if the CIA was presenting an option to attack America's best counterterrorism ally in the Gulf.
[...]
The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem.”

“Well you do have to applaud both sides of the isle on this one for further alienating what few allies we have int eh Arab world. If we can't trust the UAE we are in big trouble.”

“Umm... we aren't?”

“UAE Company Agrees to Delay Ports Takeover By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
14 minutes ago (off yahoo news)

WASHINGTON - A United Arab Emirates company offered Thursday to delay part of its $6.8 billion takeover of most operations at six U.S. ports to give the Bush administration more time to convince skeptical lawmakers the deal poses no security risks.

The surprise announcement relieves some pressure from a standoff between President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, which has threatened to block the deal because of the UAE's purported ties to terrorism.

Under the offer coordinated with the White House, Dubai Ports World said it will agree not to exercise control or influence the management over U.S. ports pending further talks with the Bush administration and Congress. It did not indicate how long it will wait for these discussions to take place.

The company said it will move forward with other parts of the deal affecting the rest of the world.

"It is not only unreasonable but also impractical to suggest that the closing of this entire global transaction should be delayed," Dubai Ports said in a statement.

"The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world," the company's chief operating officer, Ted Bilkey, said in a statement. "We need to understand the concerns of the people in the U.S. who are worried about this transaction and make sure that they are addressed to the benefit of all parties. Security is everybody's business."

The announcement came as the political furor persisted over the deal, which was supposed to be completed in early March. Concerned about national security implications, Democrats pushed Thursday for a new 45-day investigation into the business transaction.

The delay did not appease some of the deal's harshest critics.

"If the president were to voluntarily institute the review and delay the contract that would obviate the need for our legislation, but a simple cooling-off period will not allay our concerns," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.”

“For once I thank you for your endless cut and pastes V. It does give for good reading.”

“You're welcome. Here's another:


WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r”

“Hey I am the first to dislike this agreement....I am still a little wary around muslims...but then my Uncle was VERY WARY around Japanese in 1940's.
But we did trust some. http://members.aol.com/ItalyWW2/442RCT.htm”

“Al-Jihad Qaida Organization to Officials in the United Arab Emirates and especially the two emirates of
Abu-Dhabi and Dubai:

You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and
monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned.

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-603856-Trans.pdf”

“Congress Ready to Block Ports Deal By DAVID ESPO and ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writers 11 minutes ago (off yahoo news)


WASHINGTON - Republican congressional leaders told President Bush Thursday the House and Senate both appear ready to block a Dubai-owned company from taking over operations at several U.S. ports, GOP officials said.

The leadership delivered the assessment in a private meeting at virtually the same time White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated Bush's vow to veto any legislation interfering with the deal.

The developments came one day after a GOP-controlled House committee voted 62-2 to block the transfer, which has prompted an election-year Republican congressional revolt against the administration — made all the more striking because it is related to the war on terrorism.

Senate Democrats also demanded a vote on the issue, and while Republicans struggled to prevent one, they conceded they were on the political defensive.

"I admire what the House did," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "They said we know the president feels strongly about this. We know he said he's going to veto this. But we're going to do it because we think we have an obligation to our constituents."

Senate Republican GOP leaders had been hoping to prevent any votes until the conclusion of a 45-day review of the deal. At the same time, administration officials were using the time to try and ease the concerns of lawmakers.

That strategy collapsed in dramatic fashion on Wednesday, when the House Appropriations Committee overwhelmingly signaled its opposition to the deal.

Increasingly, it appeared the controversy was headed in one of two directions — a veto confrontation between Bush and Congress, or a decision by the company, DP World, to shed its plans to operate U.S. port terminals. The company arranged to hold the rights as part of its takeover of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British company that holds contracts at several U.S. ports.

Five Republican lawmakers attended the meeting with Bush where the ports deal was discussed. The conversation was described by two officials, both of whom spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the confidential nature of the discussions. Bush's response was not described.

Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, said the discussion of the ports deal had occurred at a regularly scheduled meeting between the leaders and the president. Frist "gave the president his assessment of the situation in the Senate," she said, although she declined to provide details.

The developments underscored the political concern among congressional Republicans in the run-up to midterm elections. The GOP has long held an advantage over Democrats on issues relating to national security and the war on terrorism, but pollsters from both parties agree the gap has narrowed significantly in the past few weeks.

At the same time, individual Republicans have said their constituents are calling and writing to express overwhelming opposition to the port arrangement.

Bush has defended the deal, on grounds of open, free trade, and, he says, because the United Arab Emirates has been a strong ally in the war on terror.

At the White House, McClellan told reporters, "Our focus is on continuing to work with Congress to move forward on this issue...There are members who have concerns. We believe it's important to work with Congress to address those concerns, and find a way forward."

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., offered the ports amendment on Wednesday, saying the Senate must act because of public opposition to the ports deal.

"We believe an overwhelming majority will vote to end the deal," he said.

By a 62-2 margin, the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday attached the ports legislation to a $91 billion bill providing funds for hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The measure includes $67.6 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $19.1 billion in new money for hurricane relief and rebuilding along the Gulf Coast.

The bill would bring total funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to $117.6 billion for the budget year ending Sept. 30. Total spending on Iraq and Afghanistan since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 would reach almost $400 billion.”

“Dubai Porks World has just offered to transfer operation to an american held operator.”

“Halispurton Porks World sounds a lot better.”

“Their other initiative, however, remains alive: Dubai Presidents World.”

“I think I may need to get a blaze orange vest that says, "Do not shoot" in brail if I ever hike in Texas during hunting season.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173535.stm
New bill for blind Texas hunters
Blind hunters would be able to use laser-sighted rifles to hunt animals in Texas, if a bill introduced in the state's legislature is successful.

Republican Edmund Kuempel proposed an amendment to existing law that would permit "legally blind" people to use a laser-sighting device when hunting.

Current Texas law prohibits the use of laser sights, spotlights and headlights for hunting purposes.

A sighted person would be legally required to accompany the blind hunter.

"This opens up the fun of hunting to additional people, and I think that's great," said Mr Kuempel.

Sighted guide

Blind hunters are not a new phenomenon in Texas.

Under current procedures, a sighted guide can assist a visually-impaired hunter by peering over the hunter's shoulders and advising where to aim the gun and when to pull the trigger.

However, hunters say that without a laser pointer it is difficult to time the shot.

Laser sights, spotlights and headlights are banned in hunting in Texas, because they can make the animals freeze in their tracks.

If the bill is passed in when the state legislature reconvenes in January, it will probably not become law until 2008.

Mr Kuempel's bill would give the state until 1 January 2008, to come up with a definition of legally blind so the law could be enforced.”

“I think we should let them use BIG WHITE CANES....(LOL)”

“Jeeze. Just grab a pack of hamburger and take them to the shooting range.”

“This was a domestic violence website that had an interesting idea gone horribly wrong.

http://www.dangerousminds.net/index.php/site/comments/hit_the_#&%!$_the_danish_domestic_volence_awareness_campaign/”

“UM tree yeah, ever notice that the bigger the failure the higher up the political ladder they seem to climb?”