[quote=csmelnix]

One could argue that Syria who has also "closed" funding loopholes, handed bathists and Al Qada terrorists over to the US and Iraq, etc. has changed similarly to what the UAE has too. 

[/quote]

When the conversation drifts so far from reality as to compare;<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

1)      <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Syria, a nation hostile to the US, run by a Bathist dictator, who facilitates the entry of terrorists into Iraq, has created hell on Earth in Lebanon and attacked Israel

2)      To the UAE, which has hosted US forces, allows US Customs to inspect shipping leaving their ports bound for the US and is home to an international city the likes of Dubai ,

you know you’re wasting time continuing it.

Mike,

Syria did more for the US in the first Gulf War than the UAE did and coordinated less w/ AL Qada than the UAE ever did as well.  Point is well taken though I will certainly agree with you there.  Again though, I just wouldn't be willing to sell our soul's to anybody in that region at this point.  Our good "friends" the Saudi's have certainly done some extraordinary things to help fight the war v terror as have many others, yes to include the UAE in that region.  I just am not real excited about the deal whether it's the UAE, China, Indonesia or whomever.  You can slam my example but you still can't logically solve the underlying issue of making it easier to infiltrate our ports as a result of this deal.  If, the collective body of intelligence and gov't officials review it feel comfortable, then so be it; as of yet, this still is not the case.

"If, the collective body of intelligence and gov't officials review it feel comfortable, then so be it; as of yet, this still is not the case."

That already happened when the buyout was reviewed. That's when, among other people, the 4 Star CHairman, JCS, approved.

BTW, it's funny how some things just pop up when you need them... 

"If Americans can’t learn the difference between Dubai and Damascus, we don’t stand a snowball’s chance in the desert of defeating Islamic terrorism."

http://www.indepundit.com/archive2/2006/02/donat_dump_on_d.h tml#

More from the above website;

The UAE has been on our side from the beginning. We've been using their ports and airfields since the 1980s. They fought alongside us during Desert Storm, and sent troops to Afghanistan for Enduring Freedom. During Iraqi Freedom, they sent troops to Kuwait as part of the Peninsular Defense Force.

Is any of that true of Syria?

Uh yes, actually, Syria provided tremendous support in the form of military soldiers and equipment in Desert Storm; actually don't recall UAE doing so in any sizeable form given they had a standing army of about 60k back then. 

Regardless, Mike, I was using Syria as example where they too have handed over terrorists, apparently closed down certain avenues to fund "al qada" etc.  Granted, I by no means believe they are on equal footing with the UAE in terms of relations to us.  Frankly, I don't really believe any national relations matter in terms of having an arab nation running port ops.  I know that sounds racists (or is), I know it is bias etc.. but to make such a decision because an arab nation supports our fight on terror just shouldn't be the only factor.  Not saying that it is entirely here either, simply that there are absolute security issues that need to be addressed and make sure that it is properly reviewed.  You know, I would feel the same if this was Clinton, Gore, Bush, Reagan whoever.  Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have helped us tremendously in this war too, but God, I would be real uncomfortable having any of their national firms operating our ports.  It's the make up of the extremists coming from the middle east not the national politics of the nation at the heart of it.  Extremists don't operate in a nation state per se, and it just happens that extremists we are fighting tend to be .....arab.  And it is just an easier deal for them to infiltrate a like company v another type.  Again, I know how this sounds but it is what it is in my mind.

In terms of having it already reviewed… look that just isn’t known yet.  All we are getting is the administration take on this and their track record of being upfront and thorough just doesn’t hold water these days.  If and when this thing is properly reviewed by sources outside of the president’s control (like Congress) and beyond the partisan bickering it appears that the terms of security have been addressed then great but it just is a bit troublesome that the president simply overlooked the idea that it should have been reviewed by Congress before moving ahead with it.  He seems to forget that we actually have 3 branches of government sometimes.

[quote=csmelnix]In terms of having it already reviewed... look that just isn't known yet.  [/quote]

Actually, we do.  It was reviewed under a law passed by Congress. The orgainization, called CFIUS, conducted and completed the review before what John McCain calls "hysteria" broke out.

CFIUS member agencies are: The Departments of Treasury (Chair), State, Defense, Justice, Commerce, and Homeland Security, as well as the National Security Council, National Economic Council, United States Trade Representative, Office of Management and Budget, Council of Economic Advisors, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

No less an expert than the 4 Star Marine General serving as the Chairman, JCS, reviewed and approved. Now, I can take your word on the impact of the deal, noting the inaccuracies you've already put forth, and other luminaries like Chuck Shumer, or I can trust the general, John McCain and the heads of the organizations listed above.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=csmelnix]

Uh yes, actually, Syria provided tremendous support in the form of military soldiers and equipment in Desert Storm; actually don't recall UAE doing so in any sizeable form given they had a standing army of about 60k back then. 

[/quote]

Uh, can you detail, as was done above about UAE support, what <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Syria did (troops provided, US posting rights and fly over permission provided, etc?)? And would you seriously still put Syria and the UAE in the same category?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Syria sent their 9th Armored Division and the 3rd special forces regiment against Iraq during Desert Storm.  UAE sent in a small contingent of a motorized infantry (maybe battalion size max) as part of TF Omar along with other members of the GCC.  During the war, SEAL, DELTA and SAS teams worked in and out of the border with Syria into Iraq as part of the Scud hunt.  As for air fly over etc. same deal; as part of the anti-scud mission, coalition aircraft were provided access to Syrian airspace.

Having said that, I think I already answered the second part of your question - Syria and UAE in the same category...my point is support for our war on terror can not be the only parameter used to determine deals like this one; Syria was certainly an ally during Desert Storm but I wouldn't reward them in '91 with a port deal; Pakistan is a great ally right now fighting terror, I don't want any of their companies running our ports as a result. 
One last comment since you asked me for proof; you may want to check into our long lasting relationship with UAE prior to the Gulf War...I don't believe we had any particular relationships prior to that with like you mentioned; I don't believe we had any docking and troop presence in UAE until that war broke out.  I could be wrong, but show me where?

Mike,

Also on your second point... I'm not saying the review was not done all I am saying is we are only getting the word of the administration that all is good and that it was done...the crux of the issue is that; the president at times believes his word is all that matters and refusing to provide info showing that security concerns were reviewed, mitigated, signed off on or what have you is what caused the 'hysteria.'  If he would have provided this stuff upfront instead of coming across like he's trying to slam it down everyone's throat, you would have seen the typical partisan crap.  But we didn't this time because of the point I just made, that's why both sides in Congress called the president out.  Hey if it was done and all is ok, then once the great members in Congress see that, it should become a non-issue for them; of course, we know that there will be some who still won't like it; based on merits or on politics.  But that will become pretty obvious.

For example:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Tuesday that more information had made him more comfortable with a deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage terminals at major U.S. seaports.

Last week Frist asked the Bush administration to put the deal on hold, saying it needed a more thorough review. Over the weekend, the White House and the company, Dubai Ports World, agreed to a new, 45-day security review of the contract, which closes this week.

"As I've gotten more information, I have a greater comfort level" with the Bush administration's decision granting approval of the deal, Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said.

[quote=csmelnix]

For example:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Tuesday that more information had made him more comfortable with a deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage terminals at major U.S. seaports.

Last week Frist asked the Bush administration to put the deal on hold, saying it needed a more thorough review. Over the weekend, the White House and the company, Dubai Ports World, agreed to a new, 45-day security review of the contract, which closes this week.

"As I've gotten more information, I have a greater comfort level" with the Bush administration's decision granting approval of the deal, Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said.

[/quote]

This is the crux of the issue.  This is not an issue of racism, fear mongering blah, blah, blah.  It's about using a little extra caution to look into the scope of the issues surrounding this and to ask some quesions. 

Given the nature of our national security, I doubt anyone could disagree with using a little extra caution.  What's there to disagree with about the idea of being careful?

I agree with csmelnix that a lot of Bush sympathizers here appear (key word) to be "toe to the line" (if I understand the meaning of that phrase correctly).

Whether the port deal is kosher or not, I think Bush looks awful by so stubbornly threatening his "veto" powers.  He wasn't even aware of this deal until the media ran with it.  It really seems (whether true or not)to identify a contradiction in his attitude towards the war on terror.

[quote=csmelnix]

Mike,

Also on your second point... I'm not saying the review was not done...

[/quote]

Then what did you mean by this?;

"If the CIA, FBI, Congress, Executive and HLS can all agree that they have security in place to overcome that issue, hey, have fun knock out the deal... but that has yet to occur.."

Sure looks better plain to me that you're saying the review didn't take place.

[quote=csmelnix]

...all I am saying is we are only getting the word of the administration that all is good and that it was done...

[/quote]

Given the law that governs how such a review is done, just what would you expect? Congress passed the law, the Treas Dept acted IAW the law, all agencies approved. Here's the T's press release on it;

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js4071.htm

Each of the CFIUS 12 members (departments and agencies) conducts its own internal analysis. In this case, the Departments of Transportation and Energy were also brought in to the CFIUS review to widen the scope and to add the expertise of those agencies reviewing the transaction.

On November 2, well before DP World and P&O filed with Treasury, CFIUS requested an intelligence assessment of the foreign acquirer. A little more than 30 days later -- still well before the companies formally filed with CFIUS or the review began -- the intelligence community provided CFIUS with a threat assessment regarding whether the foreign acquirer -- DPW – has the intention or capability to threaten U.S. national security.

On December 6, the companies held another pre-filing briefing for all CFIUS agencies.

On December 16, the companies officially filed their formal notice with CFIUS, requesting a review. The 30-day formal review began on December 17. During that 30-day review period, DHS, which is the CFIUS agency with specific expertise on port security, negotiated an assurances letter with the companies. DHS also consulted with all other CFIUS members before the assurances letter was finalized on January 6.

On January 17, roughly 90 days after the parties to the transaction first approached CFIUS about the transaction and roughly 75 days after a thorough investigation of the transaction had begun, all CFIUS members agreed that this particular transaction should be allowed to proceed, pending any other regulatory hurdles before the companies.

Like McCain said, this issue was reviewed long before the hysteria broke out.

[quote=csmelnix]

"...the crux of the issue is that; the president at times believes his word is all that matters..."

[/quote]

No, that's what the critics, most of whom haven't the slightest idea what the law says the process is, want the issue to be.

[quote=csmelnix]

If he would have provided this stuff upfront instead of coming across like he's trying to slam it down everyone's throat, you would have seen the typical partisan crap.

[/quote]

See above, you're simply 180 degrees out from the truth. There was no “slamming”, and the Whitehouse wasn’t even directly involved with the decision.

[quote=csmelnix] But we didn't this time because of the point I just made, that's why both sides in Congress called the president out.

[/quote]

Hardly. What caused some to "call the president out" was a combination of demagogues like Schumer and gutless wonders on the GOP side who put a wet finger into the wind and found it would be easier to loudly question the deal than to explain to constituents that many ports are already managed by foreign companies and that the deal wasn’t “Arabs buying the ports” as has been so often said. There was a tidal wave of misinformation, which continues to this day, and some cockroaches, worried about the next election, wanted to hurry out in front of opinion polls.

[quote=csmelnix]

"As I've gotten more information, I have a greater comfort level" with the Bush administration's decision granting approval of the deal, Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said.

[/quote]

The information Frist says he just got was available all along. This is nothing more than politicians looking towards the next election not wanting to be on the wrong side of lopsided, ill-informed public opinion polls.

[quote=dude]

Given the nature of our national security, I doubt anyone could disagree with using a little extra caution.  What's there to disagree with about the idea of being careful?

[/quote]

It's more than "being careful". The people who first reviewed this, IAW with the law, were "being careful". I suggest you listen closer to the loudest critics, the people like Schumer, already rushing to pass legislation to undo this before a SECOND review is even started. You also need to listen to the disninformation they're spreading about "Arabs taking over the ports". The White House has already agreed to a SECOND review.

[quote=dude]

I agree with csmelnix that a lot of Bush sympathizers here appear (key word) to be "toe to the line" (if I understand the meaning of that phrase correctly).

[/quote]

And Bush critics appear to be in a constant state of, as McCain said, hysterics.

[quote=dude]Whether the port deal is kosher or not, I think Bush looks awful by so stubbornly threatening his "veto" powers. 

[/quote]

What president has EVER said to Congress he'd surrender some power of the presidency?

[quote=dude]

  It really seems (whether true or not)to identify a contradiction in his attitude towards the war on terror.

[/quote]

Only to the ill-informed who don't know what the deal really is, how Democrats have lied about what it is (speaking of which, when did Democrats come to favor racial profiling? Want to talk contradiction?) and how it was long ago reviewed and approved.

Democrats and republicans are both guilty of contradictions.  I'm not too crazy about either party, but it's what we have to work with I guess. 

I used to enjoy politics, but now it just makes my head hurt. 

[quote=csmelnix]

Syria sent their 9th Armored Division and the 3rd special forces regiment against Iraq during Desert Storm.  UAE sent in a small contingent of a motorized infantry [/quote]

FWIW, tiny UAE lost more troops (6) than Syria (3) did.

FRIST is a moron. Love how he was able to determine Schivo from a TV. He is the John Kerry of the republicans.

Mike,

This is why you are a moron in my eyes.  You gloss over responding to any of my questions with worthless dribble.  So UAE lost more soldiers than Syria... wasn't your question on what I could prove about Syria supporting our efforts in the first Gulf War?  Funny how you always come back with crap when you get proved wrong.

Second, on my comments with the FBI, CIA etc.. read on what I said, none of the information was out there...you cite the law where it's convenient.  Why didn't you cite the part about information not being made public; so NO Congress never saw that information...just like the 'ol argument that they saw the same intel that Bush did.  The administration keeps this junk to themselves then they are shocked when they are rejected. 

Hey I am still waiting on that 1980's info where the US and the UAE were such buddy buddy nations that we had our ships in their ports and troops in their land like today?  After all, you did say they have always been friends of ours.

Some more parts of the CFIUS provision:

Information provided by companies contemplating a transaction subject to Exon-Florio is held confidential and is not made public, except in the case of an administrative or judicial action or proceeding. Nothing in section 721 shall be construed to prevent disclosure to either House of Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee of the Congress.

The Exon-Florio statute established a 30-day review following receipt of a notification. For those transactions for which an extended 45-day review (or "investigation") is completed, a report must be provided to the President, who must by law announce the final decision within 15 days. In total, the process can not exceed 90 days. The statute requires the President to inform Congress of his determination of whether or not to take action under section 721

It is there in bold that is the crux...it was not done other than by the president stating the deal itself was.  Congress was not a party until after the fact nor was information made available to them until after as well. 
MB, would also like to thank you again for proving our TOE the Line belief in calling on the Republicans who dared disagree with YOU and the Pres. as gutless and reelection focused.  They are actually liberal don't you think?