News Control of US ports: Bush selling out on US security?

[SOS2008]

SOS, I'm compelled to ask if you've paid much attention to politics before the Bush admin? Cronyism (the other two are matters of opinion) is an enormous part of what politics is all about.

I understand that cronyism has always been a part of politics. Under Bush the "conflict of interest revolving door" is spinning out of control, and the total lack of merit (couldn't Bush appoint Brownie to be Ambassador to some harmless country?) and lack of ethics (the list is too long) is astounding. These topics have been discussed in overlapping threads with a wide array of evidence provided, and I'm compelled to ask if you've paid much attention to it?

POTUS is required make individual appointments for every instance in which foreign acquisition of another foreign corporation occurs? You're absolutely certain that the DPW acquisition of P&O is that unique an event?

I was searching for information about China making a bid--I thought to manage a port in L.A., but don't have time to look further at the moment. To reiterate what edward posted:

According to the Treasury Department's web site, the relevant part of federal law, the "Byrd Amendment" to the Defense Production Act, calls for an investigation of a transaction if:

-- the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and

-- the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Further, I found this exchange at today's Senate Armed Services Committee briefing of great interest:

"The statute says an investigation shall be made, that's mandatory if the acquisition could affect the national security of the U.S.," Levin said. "It seems to me it is obvious, it is clear, even by your own actions-the fact that additional requirements were imposed here-that this acquisition could affect the security of the U.S," Levin told Kimmitt. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) made a similar point.

"If you want the law changed, I don't care which administration you represent, if any administration wants the law changed, this or a previous one, come to congress and change it. But don't ignore it," Levin said.

"...We didn't ignore the law," Kimmitt responded. "We might interpret it differently. But the fundamental facts here (are) concerns were raised and they were resolved. If they hadn't been resolved then the national security would have been effected."

"If the national security could be affected this law requires an investigation," Levin countered. "Not just what you call a resolution of concerns... if the executive branch doesn't like it come to Congress and change it. Don't interpret it away. That's my plea to any executive branch."

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) the Senate committee's chairman who called the briefing and who has given every impression of supporting the administration's position on the deal, was clearly struck by the Democrats' argument.

"I must say as a lawyer myself, reading this myself, on the face, my colleagues raise a legitimate question," Warner said. He requested that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales prepare a legal memo explaining how his and prior administrations' rationale have interpreted the statute.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/02/white_house_may.html

"...if the executive branch doesn't like it come to Congress and change it. Don't interpret it away." Where have we heard this before?

 

[edward]

POTUS is required make individual appointments for every instance in which foreign acquisition of another foreign corporation occurs?

Do you have a link for that. Most of the COFIUS members are existing cabinet heads with the Secretaty of the treasury at the top of the list.

Regardless that would pretty much puts the clamps on Bush's statement that he didn't even know about the acquisition.

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

 

[Bystander]

There have of course been many sales of American assets to foreign countries. There have likewise been many international buy outs and mergers.

I am confident in saying that this is a first for America in two ways.

1. This is a first in that a country known to have recently given aid to an enemy has been considered.

Quite a few dealings with NATO members from 1965-1975.

2. It is also the first time that a state owned company has been given consideration for the acquisition of American assets or operations.

Various dealings with Shell and Aramco come to mind.

 

[Bystander]

Originally Posted by Bystander
POTUS is required make individual appointments for every instance in which foreign acquisition of another foreign corporation occurs?

Do you have a link for that. Most of the COFIUS members are existing cabinet heads with the Secretaty of the treasury at the top of the list.

Regardless that would pretty much puts the clamps on Bush's statement that he didn't even know about the acquisition.

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

[sarcasm]In your position as janitor at the Qwik Shop, you are designated to clean the bathrooms three times a day; this of course implies that the store manager knows the nature and location of every bit of noxious material you are required to deal with during discharge of your designated duties.[/sarcasm] This is one of the features of delegation of power, duties, responsibilities, and other minutiae of government; various types of tasks are allocated to various departments, committees, and other functionaries under the a variety of higher authorities which are then free to play golf, or tend to more important things.

 

[edward]

[sarcasm]In your position as janitor at the Qwik Shop, you are designated to clean the bathrooms three times a day; this of course implies that the store manager knows the nature and location of every bit of noxious material you are required to deal with during discharge of your designated duties.[/sarcasm] This is one of the features of delegation of power, duties, responsibilities, and other minutiae of government;......

So what you really mean is that you have no links.

POTUS is required make individual appointments for every instance in which foreign acquisition of another foreign corporation occurs?

Thanks for the little red ? that clears things up a bit.

But the President is supposed to be notified before the investigation even begins yet he claimed to know nothing about anything.

 

[russ_watters]

I am well aware of that Russ. The post above has a direct link to the Treasury Department and to the exact function of that committee.

The rules require that the president or his designee oversee the investigation and then report their findings to Congress. This was not done. Again I ask, How did Bush appoint a designee if as he claims, he was not aware of the P&O to DPWorld sale?

Actually, the piece you quote says that Congress must be notified in cases of an "extended review". Since not even Bush was aware of this (apparently), it probably got just a cursory glance that raised no eyebrows, so it wouldn't really qualify.

But at the same time, the committe was the representatives of Bush. He appointed them to their positions, didn't he? I have a representative in Congress and he doesn't personally inform me of all of his actions, but he is my representative because he was put there by the people he represents. I think you are attaching a meaning to that word that it doesn't have and overreading your source.

 

[russ_watters]

I understand that cronyism has always been a part of politics. Under Bush the "conflict of interest revolving door" is spinning out of control, and the total lack of merit (couldn't Bush appoint Brownie to be Ambassador to some harmless country?) and lack of ethics (the list is too long) is astounding. These topics have been discussed in overlapping threads with a wide array of evidence provided, and I'm compelled to ask if you've paid much attention to it?

As a matter of fact, I haven't paid much attention to all the conspiracy-theory-type-stuff flying around in here. It is a waste of time and laughably silly. But if you really think Bush is somehow unique in his cronyism, you can find the same (or worse) about Clinton with a simple Google. But one (ok, two) high level example comparison: Brown's failure at FEMA is seen as the ultimate example of Bush's cronyism leading to a failure. But Clinton had even higher-level failures: his SecDef and SecAF both resigned for separate incidences of failure to adequately peform their jobs.

And even the conspiracy theories can be matched. The Clinton-Y2k-FEMA conspiracy theory is still out there even though it is 5 years out of date, but it isn't any more absurd now than it was then. And allegations of Bush leading us toward a police state are equally rediculous. What did you say 6 years ago to the speculation that Clinton would sieze dictatorial power following the Y2k crisis? In 3 years, when nothing happens except a peaceful and normal handover of power to the next president, what will you say then?

Just compare then and now:

"Martial Law" sounds so conspiracy theory-ish that many dismiss the whole concept out-right after hearing the term...

It doesn't matter what you call it, it's still the same. Y2K (naive) optimists and virtually every PR assurance routinely claim the following:

There's not going to be major power outages. There will be no food shortages. Telecommunications will work just fine. Everything that matters in the U.S. will be repaired. "We're well on our way".

HMMM...If that were undoubtedly correct, then why are extensive military plans being made to deal with widespread civil disorder and infrastructure failures?...

I believe infrastructure failures will be so disruptive the military will have to step in and "control" certain sectors of the economy if it is to remain functional. This is in addition to general civil disorder and looting accompanying the Y2K transition period...

Sufficient legal authority currently exists under the Stafford Act to allow federal resources to be utilized in response to a Y2K-related disruption if, upon application from a states governor, an "emergency declaration" is made by the President of the United States. While FEMA has no authority to respond to the causes of Y2K disruptions or to provide technical assistance for "Y2K fixes," it can respond to the physical consequences of Y2K disruptions if they constitute a threat to lives, property, public health and safety pursuant to the Presidents "emergency declaration."

[Watch for the "emergency declaration" in December or January. Then the fun begins.]

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_99/dfisher070599.html

Shockingly similar to the current conspiracy theories being generated about the Bush admin, isn't it? Laughably silly in hindsight, certainly, but did you guys consider it a realistic possibility in 1999? In 2008, these absurd conspiracy theories about Bush will look no different in hindsight from this one about Clinton.

 

[Bystander]

So what you really mean is that you have no links.

You said,

The rules require that the president or his designee oversee the investigation and then report their findings to Congress. This was not done. Again I ask, How did Bush appoint a designee if as he claims, he was not aware of the P&O to DPWorld sale?

which implies that you believe that he has to appoint someone for each and every case. I asked a rhetorical question which was intended to get you to consider the possibility that there are enough cases of this sort that it might be possible that an appointee would be expected to handle more than a single case.

(snip)

 

[edward]

You said,


which implies that you believe that he has to appoint someone for each and every case. I asked a rhetorical question which was intended to get you to consider the possibility that there are enough cases of this sort that it might be possible that an appointee would be expected to handle more than a single case.

(snip)

No, this merely means that if the president does not personally sit on the committee, he must appoint a designated person in his place. And once again I mention that Bush claims to have no knowledge of the acquisition. So who did he appoint as his designated committe member?

The key here is that only committee members of cabinet level can notify the president if there is a security issue. (which would require the extra 45 day investigation) The Coast Guard objected, but the Coast Guard falls under The Department of Homeland security and DHS overruled them.

WASHINGTON - The Coast Guard warned in December that the proposed takeover of some U.S. port operations by a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates raised "intelligence gaps" that made it difficult to assess the deal's possible threat to national security.
Its cautions, however, didn't trigger a 45-day investigation into the transaction, which would have been required if a Cabinet-level agency had raised such concerns. The Coast Guard is a division of the Department of Homeland Security.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13976607.htm

Interagency rivalries and failure to communicate resulted in 9/11.

 

[Bystander]

No, this merely means that if the president does not personally sit on the committee, he must appoint a designated person in his place.(snip)

Have you failed to grasp the concept that the chore of listening to a bunch of corporate lawyers can have been delegated years ago as a collateral duty? It's not something that requires an appointment every time there's a corporate merger?

 

[edward]

Have you failed to grasp the concept that the chore of listening to a bunch of corporate lawyers can have been delegated years ago as a collateral duty? It's not something that requires an appointment every time there's a corporate merger?

Do you realalize that is exactly what I stated. Anyone can be that designated person and they can be appointed on the presidents first day in office. Never the less there must be a designated person to sit in the presidents place and by law he and the whole committee must report to the president if there is the slightest chance that national security may be involved. They did not report to the president. And that is what this all boils down to.

Is the UAE trustworthy enough to manage our ports?

The fact that there will now be a second security hearing, and it will last the mandated 45 days, proves my point.

And again who was his designated member? And why all of the secrecy?

 

[Bystander]

Have you failed to grasp the concept that the chore of listening to a bunch of corporate lawyers can have been delegated years ago as a collateral duty? It's not something that requires an appointment every time there's a corporate merger?

Do you realalize that is exactly what I stated.

Wellll --- mebbe not "exactly." From previous posts in this thread:

But Bush claims he knew nothing about the deal . Someone sure left him with an "ignorance defense".

Even Bush claims he didn't know about this until last Monday. We are at war and according to Bush's own words as far as national security is concerned neither law or the constitution apply to anything unless he says so.

The only people who knew about this were the review committe and the people who applied to the review committe. "That dog won't hunt" when we are at war. especially at war in the Middle East.

OK We have been told that Bush supposedly was not aware of this sale, or the investigation, so how did he appoint someone to represent him??

Again I ask, How did Bush appoint a designee if as he claims, he was not aware of the P&O to DPWorld sale?

May I conclude that you wish to emend your previous remarks on the question?

Anyone can be that designated person and they can be appointed on the presidents first day in office. Never the less there must be a designated person to sit in the presidents place and by law he and the whole committee must report to the president if there is the slightest chance that national security may be involved.

On to the next misunderstanding: security questions will be raised, and security issues discussed in any review process; if such questions remain unanswered and issues unresolved at the conclusion of the review, it is to be reported to POTUS, and the higher level review take place.

They did not report to the president.

Committee chair: "You guys got any problems if we ask you to follow these extra security procedures?"

DPW: "Nope."

Chair: "Anyone got any other questions?"

Everybody else: "Nope."​

End of process.

And that is what this all boils down to.

Is the UAE trustworthy enough to manage our ports?

Not "manage our ports," but "operate the container terminals" at the ports with which P&O has contracts.

(snip)

 

[edward]

Meanwhile back on topic: Bush selling out on U.S. security.

Some points made by a senate republican:

By many accounts, the White House spent all weekend hammering out a compromise that would allow a 45-day review to go ahead, after saying last week that such further analysis was unnecessary. Sen. Susan Collins, the head Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, however, raised crucial credibility questions about the cabinet-level officials associated with the deal when she revealed a Coast Guard memo indicating that the agency has widespread concern about its ability to conduct an adequate threat assessment with the information known about the company.

Collins's committee was given a behind-closed-doors briefing late Monday afternoon where members learned additional classified information about the exact nature of the deal. Although the cabinet officials on the review panel had insisted she would be relieved by the details they could share with her in this setting, that proved not to be the case.

"I am more convinced than ever," Collins said after the briefing, "that the process [for reviewing this deal] was truly flawed, that the national security and homeland security implications of this proposed transaction were such that a 45-day investigation as called for in the law should have been undertaken."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060228/28dubaiports.htm

 

[SOS2008]

As a matter of fact, I haven't paid much attention to all the conspiracy-theory-type-stuff flying around in here. It is a waste of time and laughably silly. But if you really think Bush is somehow unique in his cronyism, you can find the same (or worse) about Clinton with a simple Google. But one (ok, two) high level example comparison: Brown's failure at FEMA is seen as the ultimate example of Bush's cronyism leading to a failure. But Clinton had even higher-level failures: his SecDef and SecAF both resigned for separate incidences of failure to adequately peform their jobs.

And even the conspiracy theories can be matched. The Clinton-Y2k-FEMA conspiracy theory is still out there even though it is 5 years out of date, but it isn't any more absurd now than it was then. And allegations of Bush leading us toward a police state are equally rediculous. What did you say 6 years ago to the speculation that Clinton would sieze dictatorial power following the Y2k crisis? In 3 years, when nothing happens except a peaceful and normal handover of power to the next president, what will you say then?

Just compare then and now: http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_99/dfisher070599.html

Shockingly similar to the current conspiracy theories being generated about the Bush admin, isn't it? Laughably silly in hindsight, certainly, but did you guys consider it a realistic possibility in 1999? In 2008, these absurd conspiracy theories about Bush will look no different in hindsight from this one about Clinton.

Bush makes Clinton look like an angel -- A more appropriate comparison would be to Nixon (except in foreign policy). Also, the sources I provided are credible, not conspiracy sites -- who the heck is Gold Eagle? Here's another one for you in regard to this thread:

The bin Laden group is represented in most Saudi cities (Riyadh, Damman) and in a number of capital cities in the region: Beirut, Cairo, Amman, Dubai.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/family.html

And some more in general:

"The ex-presidents' club" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4288516-103680,00.html

"Bechtel tied to bin Ladens

Osama bin Laden family members invested $10M in an equity fund run by former Bechtel unit." - http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/05/news/companies/war_bechtel/index.htm

"AN IMPORTANT TENET of journalism is that you should always ask, 'Who benefits?'” - http://baltimorechronicle.com/media3_oct01.shtml Also "Bin Laden Family Could Profit From a Jump In Defense Spending Due to Ties to U.S. Bank" - Wallstreet Journal--the link has expired now, but the bank referred to is the Carlyle Group)

Back to the topic, and in follow-up to my post #229:

Dubai's Support of Arab Boycott of Israel Should 'Torpedo' Ports Deal, ADL Says
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
February 28, 2006

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200602\POL20060228b.html

From this morning’s Jerusalem Post:

The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The Jerusalem Post notes that “US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.” Once upon a time, opposing such boycotts was important to the Bush Administration.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395502196&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

From the BBC, 5/11/02:

“The US government is strongly opposed to restrictive trade practices or boycotts targeted at Israel,” said Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster.

“The Commerce Department is closely monitoring efforts that appear to be made to reinvigorate the Arab boycott of Israel and will use all of its resources to vigorously enforce US anti-boycott regulations.”

…The Department of Commerce has issued more than $26m in fines and turned down export licenses to those found violating the law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2403303.stm

The boycott against Israel is an important distinction between P&O, the British company that currently operates 21 U.S. ports, and Dubai Ports World.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r

Where will the Zionist funding for Republican campaigns come from now? Maybe Lieberman will finally start to pretend to be a Democrat.

 

[edward]

There is a good possibility that there are some motives other than just wanting " a friend in the Middle east" pushing this deal.

James Baker another Bush family supporter, was appointed by Bush as special envoy to resolve Iraqs massive debt. He is lobbying the UAE and other middle eastern countries to forgive all Iraqi debt. Iraq borrowed heavily to finance its war against Iran in the 80's. That debt has never been repaid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3415043.stm

Before the USA could ever profit from the sale of Iraqi oil ,the billions in debts of Iraq would have to be paid. Before the USA could use oil money to rebuild Iraq the debts would have to be repaid.

From another point of view:

There may be a dollars-and-cents argument just as important as the hearts-and-minds appeal. As Steve Liesman from CNBC told me today during an interview, the U.S. is running a $7 billion trade SURPLUS with the UAE, not including a recent $10 billion deal between the Emirates and Boeing to buy airplanes. We don't have many trade surpluses around the world and we don't want to start a trade war with some pretty big markets.

http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/02/port_politics.html

The UAE is to decide between purchasing Boeing or Airbus planes by the end of March. That would explain the rush to push the ports deal through.

We of course must add to this information the fact that, unlike Saudi Arabia, the UAE does allow American troops to be stationed and to train there. The UAE also allows our carriers in their ports.

Are we buying a friend in the middle east?? Nothing is ever as it seems.

 

[SOS2008]

Confirmed and acknowledged:

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — Lawmakers raised new objections on Tuesday to the proposed takeover of some terminal operations at six United States ports by a Dubai company..."

Based "on a report that the parent company of state-owned Dubai Ports World honors an Arab boycott of Israel"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/p...bd1681723&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Not forgetting this:

"Bush refuses to deal with radical Hamas group
President: Palestinian militants must first agree to accept Israel’s existence" -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11027180/

And now:

"GOP unease spreads to security issues
More Republican lawmakers willing to challenge Bush" - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11612274/

Really? It wouldn't have anything to do with upcoming 2006 elections would it? Where were these congress men and women before now?

 

[edward]

Really? It wouldn't have anything to do with upcoming 2006 elections would it? Where were these congress men and women before now?

They certainly have had no problem with Bush playing the "media blitz Islamic fear factor Game" for the last five years.

Talk about being out of touch: The administration can't understand why the majority of the American people are opposed to this take over of American ports by a state owned Islamic company, even though Bush has been the one handing out repeated doses of, "grave and gathering danger".

As of this morning my local newspaper has had 19 letters to the editor concerning the port take over, all 19 were against it.

If they had spent the last five years giving the UAE or other Islamic nations a big friendly build up it might be differen't, but people would still have doubts because of 9/11.

This administration has become toally bizarre. What are the thinking? This is starting to sound like something that will require an "insanity" defense.

 

[Skyhunter]

Oh dear lord - I hadn't checked this thread in a while (I'm only looking now because of SOS's reference in another thread). It really has become just another F911 conspiracy theory thread. Michael Moore was lying to you, guys, and you can do 6 degrees of Bin Laden just as easily as you can do 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon.

A girl I went to high school with (I didn't know her, but I'm sure we passed in the hall once or twice...) was in a Kevin Bacon movie, so that's 2 degrees to me and now 3 degrees to all of you. Congratulations - now you'll always win that game...

On a more sinister note, I met Colin Powell when he gave a speech at the Naval Academy a few years back, so that means that any connection between Bush and Bin Laden also hits all of you - so all of you must have been involved in 9/11 as well.

What a silly analogy.

We are not discussing degrees of separation here. We are talking about business dealings. These are not random isolated connections, these are ongoing business dealings.

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the conservative business philosophy. Business is separated from ideology, religion, and patriotism.

You must have heard the expression. "that's business".

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, one of the critical lies in F911 is that Moore stuck together events, associations, and dealings that were separated in time and space. The biggest piece of B.S. is the stuff about the Carlyle group. It is an investment company, and just because a wealthy construction family (the Bin Ladens) and a wealthy oil family (the Bushes) invested in it (even if mebers of the one family were on the board) at the same time doesn't mean they were in any way actually connected to each other. And of course, that doesn't even take into account the fact that Osama was essentially disowned by his family.

 

[russ_watters]

Based "on a report that the parent company of state-owned Dubai Ports World honors an Arab boycott of Israel"


Not forgetting this:

"Bush refuses to deal with radical Hamas group
President: Palestinian militants must first agree to accept Israel’s existence"

What do those two things have to do with each other?

 

[turbo]

Apparently, Al Qaeda had infiltrated the government of UAE years ago, and in 2002 delivered a warning to the UAE to stop arresting their allies.

The document, a letter from the al Qaeda terrorist organization to the United Arab Emirates government, mainly warns UAE officials to stop arresting al Qaeda's "Mujahideen sympathizers." The second paragraph begins with a potentially chilling boast: "You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned."

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=SCHRAM-02-28-06

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, one of the critical lies in F911 is that Moore stuck together events, associations, and dealings that were separated in time and space.

An example from SOS's post 231...

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...ontrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

An indirect connection between President George W. Bush and the bin Laden family was created via Texas entrepreneur James Bath. Bath was Salem's commercial representative in Texas from 1976-1988. During that time, he invested $50,000 in Bush's company, Arbusto Energy. In 1990, Bush told The Houston Post that he had never had any business dealings with Bath. In 1999, his spokeswoman said that, apart from the investment in Arbusto, Governor Bush had no business with Bath.

It is nice enough to come right out and say it in the quote she provided that it is an indirect link - meaning it's the Kevin Bacon game of degrees of separation:

Bush->
James Bath->
Salem bin Laden->
Osama bin Laden

That's 3 degrees of separation - if you let go of the fact that Bath and Bush never met! (in 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, you have to at least have been in the same room as one of the people involved). I wonder if Bath and Salem bin Laden ever met...? And to call an investment a "business dealing", while factually true is uselessly general. If I buy gas from a nearby Texaco, it can be said that I have "business dealings" with Texaco. In fact, I have never sat down in a business meeting with anyone from Texaco and James Bath likely never sat down in a business meeting with Arbusto. And yes, some will point out that it says Bath "invested" - so that likely means stock. A $50,000 chunk of stock is a pittance - it is not a major investment. Not even enough to make it worthwhile to go to an annual shareholder's meeting.

 

[SOS2008]

An example from SOS's post 231...

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...ontrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0
It is nice enough to come right out and say it in the quote she provided that it is an indirect link - meaning it's the Kevin Bacon game of degrees of separation:

Bush->
James Bath->
Salem bin Laden->
Osama bin Laden

That's 3 degrees of separation - if you let go of the fact that Bath and Bush never met! (in 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, you have to at least have been in the same room as one of the people involved). I wonder if Bath and Salem bin Laden ever met...? And to call an investment a "business dealing", while factually true is uselessly general. If I buy gas from a nearby Texaco, it can be said that I have "business dealings" with Texaco. In fact, I have never sat down in a business meeting with anyone from Texaco and James Bath likely never sat down in a business meeting with Arbusto. And yes, some will point out that it says Bath "invested" - so that likely means stock. A $50,000 chunk of stock is a pittance - it is not a major investment. Not even enough to make it worthwhile to go to an annual shareholder's meeting.

So by your logic BushCo claims of connection between Saddam and Bin Laden, removed to between Iraq and Al-Qeada, removed all together is faulty? Good to hear that. The main point you were making is that this is all conspiracy theory. Unlike your source about Y2K, these are credible reports that show BushCo clearly has association with the Bin Laden family. Is that not enough to have concern? Do we need a video showing Bush talking directly with Osama? There may be one out there waiting to be discovered.

Returning to the topic of DP World, I stated long ago my concern about the "why' of it all, and "why" aren't we managing our own ports. Now this is where the debate is going.

 

[edward]

This is not about degress of separation or any other kind of separation.
It is about money and connections.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041101/klein

( A very long read for those who might be interested.)

And we have another connection between the Carlyle group and the UAE ports deal.

What does Dubai Ports World have in common with CSX, Treasury Secretary John Snow, and the Bush Family? The Carlyle Group is the answer currently gaining ground on the Internet.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49096

 

[turbo]

And we have another connection between the Carlyle group and the UAE ports deal.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49096

Well, at least the Bushies can't dismiss World News Daily as a radical left-wing outlet. They are about as conservative as you can get.

 

[Amp1]

Turbo-1, Good post (#261)

I'm sure Bushco will claim they had no knowledge of the implications of the port deal in light of that revealing document. Guess the NSA and CIA were bumbling along again.

 

[Skyhunter]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ubContrassID=0

Quote:

An indirect connection between President George W. Bush and the bin Laden family was created via Texas entrepreneur James Bath. Bath was Salem's commercial representative in Texas from 1976-1988. During that time, he invested $50,000 in Bush's company, Arbusto Energy. In 1990, Bush told The Houston Post that he had never had any business dealings with Bath. In 1999, his spokeswoman said that, apart from the investment in Arbusto, Governor Bush had no business with Bath.

Their is a credibility problem here because of the source, as I have outlined with bold type.

The man is a compulsive liar, which is common with untreated alcoholism. He also doesn't know Jack Abramoff. (right)

 

[russ_watters]

The main point you were making is that this is all conspiracy theory.

Yes.

Unlike your source about Y2K, these are credible reports that show BushCo clearly has association with the Bin Laden family.

Huh? Clinton passed real laws expanding the power of FEMA to deal with an expected crisis. The entire point of the six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon demonstration is that Bush clearly does not have a direct association with the Bin Laden family, much less a direct connection with Bin Laden himself, as you are implying you believe.

Is that not enough to have concern?

Someone Bush never met invested a trivial sum of money in a company Bush owned for someone else Bush never met - no, that is certainly not enough to have a concern.

Do we need a video showing Bush talking directly with Osama? There may be one out there waiting to be discovered.

Certainly, that would qualify as showing a direct link. But don't you see what you are doing? You are basing your concern on the assumption that they actually did have personal contact, when your own inormation shows that they did not.

 

[SOS2008]

The United States of oil
No administration has ever been more in bed with the energy industry -- but does that mean Big Oil is calling Bush's shots? First of two parts.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Damien Cave

Nov. 19, 2001 | The Bush administration's ties to oil and gas are as deep as an offshore well. President George W. Bush's family has been running oil companies since 1950. Vice President Dick Cheney spent the late '90s as CEO of Halliburton, the world's largest oil services company. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice sat on the board of Chevron, which graced a tanker with her name. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans was the CEO of Tom Brown Inc. -- a natural gas company with fields in Texas, Colorado and Wyoming -- for more than a decade.

The links don't end with personnel. The bin Laden family and other members of Saudi Arabia's oil-wealthy elite have contributed mightily to several Bush family ventures, even as the American energy industry helped put Bush in office. Of the top 10 lifetime contributors to George W.'s war chests, six either come from the oil business or have ties to it, according the Center for Public Integrity.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/11/19/bush_oil/index.html

Two major investors in Bush's company (Harken) were Salem bin Laden and Khalid bin Mahfouz. - http://www.forbes.com/global/2002/0318/047.html

The Carlyle Group defines the next phase of power: a Washington-based private equity fund with a difference. It is headed by Frank Carlucci, former CIA director and defense secretary under Ronald Reagan and lifelong friend of George Bush Sr. Bush (also once director of the CIA) sits next to Carlucci on the board with a portfolio specialising in Asia and does not hesitate to communicate with his son on concerns of regional relevance to Carlyle such as Afghanistan or the Pacific Rim. Bush Jr was once chairman of a Carlyle subsidiary making in-flight food.

...On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,738196,00.html

Plane Carried 13 Bin Ladens
Manifest of Sept. 19, 2001, Flight From U.S. Is Released
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 22, 2004; Page A07

At least 13 relatives of Osama bin Laden, accompanied by bodyguards and associates, were allowed to leave the United States on a chartered flight eight days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to a passenger manifest released yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4014-2004Jul21.html

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today pointed out that the recent spate of terror attacks on Israel has lent new urgency to the need for former President Bush to resign from the Carlyle Group, an international investment firm with close ties to the government of Saudi Arabia.

The former president, the father of President Bush, worked for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, meeting with them at least twice. The terrorist leader Osama bin Laden had supposedly been “disowned” by his family, which runs a multi-billion dollar business in Saudi Arabia and was a major investor in the senior Bush’s firm. Other reports have stated his Saudi family have not truly cut off Osama bin Laden.

In the wake of Judicial Watch and other criticism of its ties to the bin Laden family business, the Carlyle Group reportedly no longer does business with the bin Laden conglomerate. Yet the Group, among other conflicts of interest, reportedly has a major business relationship with the Saudi Arabian government, which many have criticized for its lack of cooperation in America’s war on terrorism and its financial and other support for terrorist attacks on Israel and U.S. interests.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/1685.shtml

Back to the main topic -- Aside from whether the DP World deal represents a threat to our national security or not, it seems Bush does something hypocritical, unconstitutional, or downright illegal almost daily. Amazing!

 

[turbo]

The GOP-controlled House Appropriations committee has attached language to a Katrina relief bill that would block DPW from purchasing P&O. Bush is in trouble with the gulf states over the poor federal response to Katrina and cannot afford to veto that bill. Of course, he is pushing hard for a line-item veto, and he might have enough votes in Congress to give him that if the GOP leadership can keep their members in line. Personally, I doubt that he can get the line-item veto in this mid-term election year. Too many voters are already sick of Bush and the Congressional GOP do not want to share in his misfortunes next fall.