First he claims he didn’t know anything about it until it passed through the foreign investment committee. But when the rank and file start kicking up a fuss, George throws the full weight of the presidency behind it, and when things start looking really bleak, he plays the anti-Arab race card .
Giving UAE control over 6 of our biggest ports (and tentacles in 16 others) is such a horrible idea most of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, rejected it out of hand. And the deeper we look the more insane it becomes.
Then prove it. And saying something like “no other explanation makes sense” just means you haven’t thought about it enough.
Dubai is hugely strategic to the US as a base of operations in the Middle East. It would be a big loss if relations were to sour. We stage operations for Iraq and Afghanistan there, with hundreds of naval vessels passing throught their ports, and an airstrip that the Air Force uses.
There is no need to speculate some shady financial dealings. Also, not that there are plenty of non-politicians who see this as no big deal. There are also several other countries affected by this deal and none are resisting it. That includes Britain, Germany, France, Australia and Belgium. Dubai Ports World issue: why only controversial in the US?
Maybe Dubai has Osama in custody, and will let our military “capture” him just before the next election, so the Republicans win and Bush looks like a hero. Their price for this service is control of US ports. There has to be *something * behind this, because it is the stupidest idea I’ve heard of lately.
People who think this know very little about how the executive branch works. Just because Bush is President doesn’t mean everything that happens in the executive branch is caused by him. There are many routine matters that follow procedures set up long ago. The ports deal is one. The companies who want the contracts compete for them and go through the government process. The best one as determined by the process gets the deal. It’s pretty simple, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the President. Most government contracts work this way. The President is not up at the White House doling out contracts to whomever he wants.
Bush can’t simply turn around and cancel the contract. That’s not how our system works. Plus, UAE is a major ally of the U.S. It’s pretty bad foreign policy to cancel a contract with a firm simply because it’s Arab. Bush is doing the right thing here, and to claim (with absolutely no proof) that he’s doing it because he’s paid off is stupid.
Much as I dislike the guy, this has nothing to do with money, and all indications are he knew nothing about it during the approval process. This is a case of the fear and suspicion he’s stirred up coming back to bite him, and him losing track of what the public is thinking. Kind of amusing, really.
Not only did the Bush administration have nothing to do with this deal, the operational control of the US ports in question is rather peripheral to the deal. This is a run-of-the-mill buyout of one huge international port operation company (based in London) by another huge international port operation company (based in Dubai). Why would anyone think that the US government had anything to do with this sort of business deal? DPW wasn’t awarded any government contract. They bought out P&O, whose assets happened to include the leases on some American ports.
Getting worked up about this seems roughly akin to getting upset if some multinational conglomerate based in Dubai bought the Ambassador Bridge (link between Detroit, MI and Windsor, ON, busiest crossing between US and Canada). Ooooh! Scary foreigners are now in charge of hiring the people sitting in the tollbooths! That’s going to compromise the integrity of the security provided by the Customs checkpoint at the base of the bridge! :rolleyes:
The law says that if a deal involves a foreign power, or a company owned by a foreign power, then this must trigger a 45 day review. It did not. And did you see Bush call for one? Hell no. Dubai did, but Dubya didn’t.
Secondly, Bush is a reflexive liar. So I, and millions of others in this country, know better than believe any of his pronouncements. He’s no statesman. So if you think he’s ramming this deal through for the benefit of the country, you’re being not just stupid, but naive.
Bush is supporting the deal the way he is because it’s an embarrassment if it gets rejected. He wasn’t involved personally, it seems, but because of the way Congress reacted, he had to get behind it if he wanted to save face. It looks like that’s completely failed, but obviously he figured that dropping the deal immediately would make him look weak. And perhaps he does believe it would make America look bad to its allies, although it’s a little strange for him to start worrying about that now.
That’s the apologists’ constant defense of Bush: He didn’t know.
Right.
He didn’t know Iraq had no WMDs. He had no idea Katrina would do so much damage, or the levees would breach. He was unaware of the Plame outing, the corruption in Congress, the Ports deal, and on and on.
He’s “ramming” nothing through. Saying that betrays a stunning ignorance of how government contracting works. Bush was not responsible for the deal. To reiterate, the President does not hand out government contracts. It’s not a matter of believing Bush or not, it’s a matter of having a little bit of knowledge about how the government works.
To be clear, its obvious you don’t have a clue what you are talking about…and are militantly opposed to LEARNING whats actually happening from all the nice folks in this thread who have tried to point it out to you. Most of which aren’t exactly on GW’s Christmas card list (the fact you think Voyager a Bush appologist has me literally rolling on the floor in tears).
For you, ‘Ignorance just ain’t a defense any more’, since you simply refuse to wrap your mind around the fact that you really have no idea of the facts of this situation. My advice is…quit while you are ahead, start another thread on something legitimate you can bash Bush on (its a target rich environment so to speak) and go to town.
And the standard screech of the Bush harpies in response.
What’s wrong with your statement though, is that it is extremely likely that Bush isn’t cognizant of every detail of everything that happens in his administration. So the “apologist’s constant defense,” mayn’t be that at all. It may be cold stark reality. I’m not saying that’s what happened here, however, just noting that it would be absurd in the extreme to expect the CEO of a several million person corporation to know what everyone’s doing every moment and every decision they’re making. Same thing with the gubbmint - no matter which which party holds the head position and no matter how supremely skilled a manager the gal might be.
As I just noted in that Pit thread, Dubai has agreed to turn over control of the American ports to a “U.S. entity,” per Sen. John Warner. I’m not quite sure what all that means, but it might be a face-saving compromise for everybody.
I’m with you on all these other ones [at least for the most part] and yet I still don’t see why Bush couldn’t be telling the truth in this case. Sometimes, even compulsive liars tell the truth. (And, from what I can fathom without following the story very closely, Voyager’s take on the deal seems about right to me…Columnist Paul Krugman, another person not known for being a Bush apologist basically argued the same thing.)
