Bush is right and the Democrats are full of shit

The BBQ Pit
81

To take your point a little further, one would think that in order to make such a claim, some Federal agency would have had to do a finding of fact to that effect.

And whether CFIUS followed or skirted the law in omitting such an investigation. Because as you point out, CFIUS wasn’t free to reach any conclusion they wanted, on any basis. They were constrained by the statute.

One thing I’d like to **re-**emphasize from the previous thread is why it’s important that they follow the law closely, why they do the required investigations, or be able to support why they didn’t have to. And that’s this:

There are some areas of debate where we Dopers can quickly bring ourselves up to speed on the pertinent facts. This really doesn’t seem to be one of them. I haven’t seen the workings of a major port, and probably no more than a few of the thousands of still-active posters have. And lacking that background, I suspect that there’s only so far we can go in figuring out how this deal really might affect our security.

We have to rely on experts.

And I’m sure that’s true of Bush, Rummy, Treasury Secretary Snow, and all the others who’ve been visible in their involvement with this on the Administration end.

So to some degree, we citizens have to substitute for our own ability to make an informed and accurate decision on this based on our own knowledge and wisdom, the knowledge that the Administration has had experts in the field examine the deal and verify that nothing bad is going to come of this.

If that thorough expert examination hasn’t been done, then we’re all thrown back on our rather inadequate judgments. Which is not the way it’s supposed to work in a case like this.

82

Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut.

The more I learn about this deal, the more I become convinced Bush is on the right side of this issue.

If it hadn’t taken until the 318th week of his administration before I had this feeling, I’d be much happier.

83

I’m starting to get really freaked out here.

I used to find DtC an asshole who was often wrong poltiically.

And lately I’ve been agreeing with him on so much, particulary the ports deal.

What the hell is going on here?

Damnit, DtC? Why must I agree with you so much? It’s totally fucking up my politcal compass.

84

That’s one of the reason I renouced the right. I got so sick of the fact the right as a rule tended to use 9/11 as a blunt object to attack pretty much anyone who dares criticize the adminstration.

Concern about illegal wiretraps? The Attorney General implies that just talking about it helps the terrorists.

And so forth…

85

They’re good eating!
Dio, there is hope for you yet. :stuck_out_tongue:
What is amazing to me is how the seeming majority of anyone that gives a shit is on Bush’s side on this, while pretty much the entire Congress is against it.

Shit is really getting weird.

86

Ew.

87

But you’re missing the point. You can’t just say that the review is triggered whenever national security issues are at stake. Someone has to make that determination. It’s not done by a computer, so if it’s not CFIUS, who is? You might be able to make the argument that CFIUS is not performing as expected, but there can be no doubt that they are empowered to make the decision.

As for outside experts, I haven’t seen any. I’ve watched countless interviews on this issue, and every expert who I’ve seen interviewed has said there is no signficant security issue. Everyon who has raised a security has been a politcian.

88

Should have been:

I haven’t seen any who claimed it should be blocked.

And let me ask, once again, why is the US the only country, out of all those affected, which is alarmed about this deal. Why do we not hear even a peep from any other country affected? Could it be that we’re (gasp!) wrong???

89

I don’t think other countries’ reaction is an indicator of whether we are right or wrong. There really is no right or wrong, only what we think is the most prudent course of action given the circumstances.

Given that UAE royalty have been friends of UBL in the past (and probably continue to be), it seems unwise to ignore the possibility that the relationship could be used to AQ’s advantage.

90

------- But you’re missing the point. You can’t just say that the review is triggered whenever national security issues are at stake. Someone has to make that determination. It’s not done by a computer, so if it’s not CFIUS, who is? You might be able to make the argument that CFIUS is not performing as expected, but there can be no doubt that they are empowered to make the decision.

I’m not missing the point at all. I’ve conceded that the CFIUS is operating within the letter of the law (though frankly, such a piss-poor administrative decision is typically subject to judicial review). I’m conceding this to shift the focus of the discussion away from legalities (IANAL) and onto policy.

Again, I have yet to read of an outside expert who says there’s no issue here. What they say is that this issue is small relative to other pressing ones.

------- Everyone who has raised a security [issue] has been a politician.

Nonsense. The coast guard expressed security concerns.

Let’s remember the central issue: the plan should have been given the type of vetting that is normally extended to this sort of deal. That way, specialists can have a look at the full range of issues, rather than simply talking off the top of their head. Indeed DPW seems like it would be less than fluxomed by requests for reasonable accomodation.
Again, I think a deal should be cut. It’s just that I think that policy should be grounded on facts, analysis and proper procedure rather than on intuition.

------ And let me ask, once again, why is the US the only country, out of all those affected, which is alarmed about this deal. Why do we not hear even a peep from any other country affected? Could it be that we’re (gasp!) wrong???

The US is not the only Al Queada target, but it is a major one. Still, your question is valid. But I’m feeling like a skipping record player: I’m not saying that the deal should necessarily be blocked: I’m saying it should be vetted. I’m not aware of any country that simply rubber-stamps the foreign takeover of a sensitive industry. Standard review allows reasonable adjustments to be made in business dealings.

Details matter. I would be a little surprised if any serious expert recommended that we should break protocol and not require the foreign concern to maintain records in the US. Yet that is what transpired. Honey pot?

91

It’s not a determinant, but it damn sure is an indicator. If it doesn’ make you stop and question your position, then you’re not thinking.

I hate to have to tell you this, but the US has been “friends” with ObL in the past. We sided with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Russians. Guess who else was funding the Mujahideen at that time?

92

It’s certainly worth considering as one piece of data in a large puzzle, but probably one of the smaller pieces.

I am fully aware of our activities in Afghanistan. The CIA routed aid through Pakistan’s ISI (we generally didn’t set foot in the country for fear of the Russians getting pissed off about direct involvement), who in turn used the money and weapons to train the Mujahideen, which they turned around and sent significant numbers to Kashmir to fight India.

We were not “friends” with UBL while the Russians remained in Afghanistan and we were not “friends” with UBL after the Russians left. Our state department did attempt to work with Mullah Omar (leader of the Taliban) but this was at the exact same time the CIA was making attempts on UBL’s life.

So let’s be clear, the friendship between UBL and the UAE royal family is wildly different from the “friendship” (as you call it) that we had with him while we were sending 20 tomahawk missiles into his house.
Now, back to the issue, UBL and UAE royalty have been friends in the past and I don’t see any reason to think they would not still be friends today. The UAE royal family, I assume, wields significant power in UAE economic circles, and I would think UBL and AQ could use that to their advantage.

If you were UBL do you not think that might be an advantage? I know I would.

93

:sigh:
From the GD thread, so I’m sure you debunked it, though I don’t see where or how:

Expert, or no?

94

Okay, then I must have heard wrong, or someone was drumming it up as a way to kill the deal, and then it didn’t go anywhere.

95

I think calling anyone who questions this deal an ignorant xenophobe is just as ignorant as being an ignorant xenophobe. There are questionable aspects to this deal that have nothing to do with xenophobia. I don’t care if it’s the Swiss, the English or Canadians.

Why would the US, a hardcore capitalist country, be ideologically OK with a government owned company buying our infrastructure? What, exactly, is in it for us? Will this company pay US workers a fair wage? Will they even use US workers? Why has noone paid a gnat’s amount of attention that that aspect? Is this government owned company uniquely qualified to do this? Does their government subsidize this company in order to compete unfairly? It’s easy to be the low bidder when you’ve got your government to cover your losses, but that’s not free-market capitalism, the economic Jesus of the US.

Like I’ve said in another thread, I could give two shits if some other country wants to buy Wal-Mart or McDonalds, but ports are part of our strategic infrastructure, and a widely acknowledged weak link in homeland security. Why is even questioning the wisdom of this deal ignorant xenophobia?

96

Have you actual read any actual, you know, news in the last month? Or do you live on a cloud somewhere?

Just FYI, American docks and dock workers are unionized. Have been for a while. It was in the newspapers and everything.

97

I have, and here’s the deal: In the furor over this deal, that aspect has been almost never mentioned. If they were not going to be required to keep records here, how would we even know what they were going to do about this? I admit that this aspect is probably not too much of a concern, but the questions I’m asking have nothing at all to do with the fact they’re Arabs, or have ties to UBL, which is what 99.999% of coverage talks about. Nowhere I could find is it mentioned how they would’ve managed US workers. If they have a record of treating their workers like kings or slaves, I haven’t seen it. If you have a detailed cite that covers that aspect, I’d like to see it.

98

I would just like to invite many of our conservative bretheren who are jumping in to so humorously express the rarity of their agreement with Diogenes to, at some point, somewhere, show the mental flexibility to disagree with Bush on some other topic (preferably something other than the easy ones, like “Bush hasn’t cut taxes enough” or “Bush is a big government conservative.”) Not here, please, however. I’m not trying to poop in the punch bowl.

99

Again, anyone who even questions this deal is called ignorant. Is that all the hell you people have? Show me, in a detailed, unbiased cite, how this deal is better for America than any other deal out there. If that’s even the point anymore.

100

Good. Now I’ve seen exactly 1. Oh, and you must have somehow forgotten this part from your cite. Maybe your cut and paste buffer was full, because these two paragraphs come immediately after the ones you cited:

Sorry, but you simply haven’t convinced the majority of people in this thread that the deal is bad. I know that isn’t proof that you’re wrong, but why do you suppose so many of the usual Bush-bashers aren’t jumping on your band wagon? Why aren’t people saying; Gee, I read RTF’s thread in GD, and I wasn’t sure before but now I’m convinced the deal is bad? Could it be that you simply haven’t made the case?