Bush ceding US ports to the enemy?

Oh, right. I mean, let's cut them some slack. They can hardly be expected to bother themselves about something as trivial as the security of six major US ports, whithout which our economy would crumble, right?It's hilarious the way you defend Bush, Tal. Everytime you try you just make them look even more like idiots.

You'd think so, but the Bush administration was so intent on this deal going through that they've specifically waived many of the requirements foreign corporations must usually adhere to in order to do business here. I don't know that our labor laws are one of them, but since the requirement that the corporation maintain copies of its business records on US soil was waived, even if they violated our labor laws, they'd be essentially immune from prosecution - there'd be no way to push discovery because they're under no obligation to respond to subpoena.The Bush administration has essentially declared them off-limits to US courts. Seems to me like they could violate any law they liked and get away with it.

I'm sorry, where did I challenge your facts? Your facts were absolutely correct - Bush is dangerously out-of-touch and out of the loop in his own administration.What I didn't understand was why you think that constituted a defense.

Where do you get this stuff, Tal? Hannity? These statements are outright falsehoods.From the Associated Press:

quote:

---

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement
By TED BRIDIS (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
February 22, 2006 9:05 PM EST
WASHINGTON - 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.

​

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

---

So, the administration are the ones who brokered the deal, they got to take a peek at some secret records, but we're just supposed to trust Bush that they won't do anything bad in the future, long after Bush himself is out of office, because Dubai Ports is essentially immune from prosecution in US courts.

I've already sourced the article, it's up there in the byline. Looking up AP articles isn't that hard. Try Google News.

Just because I wouldn't trust a guy with the keys to my house doesn't mean I need to go over to his house with a gun and put one in his forhead.But I guess the idea that there's a differential scale of threat didn't occur to you. Either we drop our drawers for somebody or we take 'em out. How simple it is in the world of the Republican.

Which is a problem right there. I'm sure that the $600 million budgeted for port defense will go really far at each of the nations 359 ports. 66 of which have already been labeled as being "especially vulnerable to terrorist attacks": We can’t find the page you are looking for.I just think a little caution and review is warranted. The ports may already be a danger. Shouldn't we be cautious about turning them over to a government with even limited ties to terror?

That's compassionate conservatism. The Bush adminsitration believes it's unfair, and they're trying to reach out to those poor unfortunate souls who are disenfranchised from approval processes, simply because of a little ol' conflict of interest.

So, it's actually 21 ports, not 6. That's a new detail coming out, I guess.

Well, pardon me, but what he did according to your cite was convince Dubai Ports to consent to a 45-day review period, which wasn't going to happen, otherwise. Now we've got a chance to find out if the deal is dangerous and stop it if it is. Before, we wouldn't have found out until it was too late.Looks to me like he did a lot more for our nation's security than Bush just did.

Uranium for power plants? Sarin so degraded that the two GI's who got a faceful of it were back to their regular duties the next day?No, I wouldn't say those are WMD's.

Tal, there's absolutely nothing honest about you. You're a liar. Probably a disgrace to your uniform, if we can even believe that you wear one.How much mass destruction did any of these things cause? How much more likely was it that they would fall into terrorist hands after the invasion than before?Saddam was controlled. That's what the evidence says. He had re-admitted the inspectors but we invaded anyway. We've got memos all over the place laying out clearly the Administration's knowing plan to decieve the American people into supporting the war. And just like Democrats predicted, it's developed into civil war.