Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Looks like we know who approved the Port Deal

AlexRS

By AlexRS
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

AlexRS

AlexRS

Posted
Posted

Look at how easy it is to get things done nowadays. Get an appointment to high office, then do whatever you want.

From:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11604179/

Hearing on Tuesday

More fuel could be added to the fire Tuesday when the Senate Commerce Committee holds a hearing to review the DP World deal. Edward H. Bilkey, DP World’s chief operating officer, was to testify.

In February, the Commerce Committee vetted the appointment of David C. Sanborn of Virginia, a senior DP World executive, to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department.

The White House appointed Sanborn, who worked as DP World’s director of operations for Europe and Latin America, to the post in January, the same month the Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved the DP World takeover.

Two Democrats, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Bill Nelson of Florida, have vowed to block Sanborn’s nomination unless he testifies again before the Commerce Committee. “He worked for Dubai Ports World when this deal was rushed through under cover of darkness without sufficient security review,” Kerry said in a statement Tuesday. “In the post 9/11 world, we need to know why.”

White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said the DP World deal “went through the normal review process and was carefully checked.”

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

I love the little “In the post 9/11 world, we need to know why.” bit Kerry slipped in there. It's time to start bringing Administration's rhetoric to accountability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
Posted
I dont know about you fellas, but I'm scared.

Looks like this Administration is guided by business interests over anything else....

Just like virtually every other administration we had

You don't want me to list the national security sell outs Bill Clinton had over oil contracts in the late 1990s do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Art Monk Fan

Art Monk Fan

Posted
Posted

So this guy gets named to head a division of the Transportaion Dept. the same month that the Treasury Dept. approves a deal concerning his former employer... maybe I'm dense, but I don't see how his being named (but not taking over) a division of one department has anything to do with the actions of an entirely different department. What am I missing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DjTj

DjTj

Posted
Posted
So this guy gets named to head a division of the Transportaion Dept. the same month that the Treasury Dept. approves a deal concerning his former employer... maybe I'm dense, but I don't see how his being named (but not taking over) a division of one department has anything to do with the actions of an entirely different department. What am I missing here?
an agenda. ;)

What's the agenda?

I have to admit that I don't get it either.

If the story is that the Bush administration approved the deal as a favor for this guy, shouldn't he be the one paying back the administration? Why is he getting rewarded when he's the one that got the benefit?

I'm all ready to jump on the Bush corruption bandwagon, but I'd like to know where it's going...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@DCGoldPants

@DCGoldPants

Posted
Posted
I dont know about you fellas, but I'm scared.

Aww, poor baby is scared.

:rolleyes:

Dude, this is how politics works in Washington. Your naivete is astounding.

They way you're writing this off, its weakness at its highest point.

If you aren't bothered with how this Port deal went through the process, then I've worried about your naiveté.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rictus58

rictus58

Posted
Posted
how so?

and are you talking about the dubai controversy as a whole, or this particular item?

The port issue as a whole. Republican and Democrats alike have a problem with this deal which shows it isn’t an issue of partisian politics. It’s a matter of common sense. Those who lack it will blindly follow GW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DjTj

DjTj

Posted
Posted
The port issue as a whole. Republican and Democrats alike have a problem with this deal which shows it isn’t an issue of partisian politics. It’s a matter of common sense. Those who lack it will blindly follow GW.

Bush didn't even know this deal was going through. This isn't a matter of supporting or attacking his judgment, unless you're a political opportunist.

I have disagreed with just about everything Bush has done, but the hysteria surrounding this ports deal is ridiculous. This thread is just one example - people can't seem to separate port security from port operations, private transactions from government contracts, Dubai Ports from Al Qaeda, or cronyism from coincidence.

I don't really care whether or not Dubai Ports, but I think people are being totally irrational in criticizing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chief skin

Chief skin

Posted
Posted

The administration that said we will bring integrity and honor back to the White house, we have moral values, blah, blah, blah. How low will this administration sink into the sleazy cesspoll of wired deals, lies, and scandal. Don't be scared the ones who are scared are the clowns who have supported this crap over the past 6 years.Now they are are up for reelection in 250 days. HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE, THROW THE BUMS OUT!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rumrunner6900

Rumrunner6900

Posted
Posted
Bush didn't even know this deal was going through. This isn't a matter of supporting or attacking his judgment, unless you're a political opportunist.

I have disagreed with just about everything Bush has done, but the hysteria surrounding this ports deal is ridiculous. This thread is just one example - people can't seem to separate port security from port operations, private transactions from government contracts, Dubai Ports from Al Qaeda, or cronyism from coincidence.

I don't really care whether or not Dubai Ports, but I think people are being totally irrational in criticizing it.

Everyone should read this post! :applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Major Harris

Major Harris

Posted
Posted
The port issue as a whole. Republican and Democrats alike have a problem with this deal which shows it isn’t an issue of partisian politics. It’s a matter of common sense. Those who lack it will blindly follow GW.

those who don't really know the whole story are the ones adamantly opposed, for the most part.

correct me if i'm wrong, but haven't foreign companies been managing our ports for years? isn't SECURITY still in the hands of the u.s. coast guard? will not the same employees that currently work at the ports still be employed?

i'm not a blind bush follower. don't really like him. my first knee jerk reaction was pretty much WTF, you can't be serious. the more i looked into it, the more it seemed to be much ado about nothing.

a good friend of mine is a self-described "liberal with a capital 'L". he hates bush. he has no problem with the deal.

it's not just a matter of if you're bush, anti-bush, or even being a blind follower.

if this sale was to, say, a german company. would the uproar be the same? no. this seems to be more a fear of Arabs then anything else. imo, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rictus58

rictus58

Posted
Posted
Bush didn't even know this deal was going through. This isn't a matter of supporting or attacking his judgment, unless you're a political opportunist.

This is a problem in itself. Bush puts too much trust in people who work beneath him.

I have disagreed with just about everything Bush has done, but the hysteria surrounding this ports deal is ridiculous. This thread is just one example - people can't seem to separate port security from port operations, private transactions from government contracts, Dubai Ports from Al Qaeda, or cronyism from coincidence.

I know they will not be in control of Port security. I can seperate the two issues. However, Port security is lax as it is. The fact that a state owned company, a state sympathetic to the Taliban to AQ and a state that boycotts Israel, owns this company does not sit well with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ccsl2

ccsl2

Posted
Posted

I have disagreed with just about everything Bush has done, but the hysteria surrounding this ports deal is ridiculous. This thread is just one example - people can't seem to separate port security from port operations, private transactions from government contracts, Dubai Ports from Al Qaeda, or cronyism from coincidence.

I don't really care whether or not Dubai Ports, but I think people are being totally irrational in criticizing it.

And you shouldn't seperate the two..Even if the UAE company will not being doing the "security", they will have vital information as to the security operations strenghths and weaknesses of the port...and all it takes is 1 person privy to that information to flip and give it up to an terrorist organization and then you have a serious issue on your hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rictus58

rictus58

Posted
Posted
correct me if i'm wrong, but haven't foreign companies been managing our ports for years?

if this sale was to, say, a german company. would the uproar be the same? no. this seems to be more a fear of Arabs then anything else. imo, of course.

If the German government OWNED THE COMPANY I would have a problem with it. If the British Government owned the company, I would have a problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hokie4redskins

hokie4redskins

Posted
Posted

Bufford, if this deal took away port SECURITY from the COAST GUARD, then I'd have a problem. As it turns out, that's not the case whatsoever, though democrats have been clamoring as if it was.

What I find funny is the liberal hypocrisy. Dems will ***** and moan about searching a Saudi in full garb at the airport as racial profilin'. Now, if a UAE company takes over port OPERATIONS, not SECURITY, they scream to the heavens.

This thing has been blown WAY out of proportion and you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...