Say Anything Blog

Rob,... Thanks I needed that! I feel better about his decision…

Sorry Rob,

 While you agree with Rush, Bush - and Carter.

And normally 2 of those 3 are good company.

I must disagree based on this principle:

"If FEMA is part of Homeland Security, why aren’t the Ports"?

I dont’t advocate more government…well, ever really….but I think this is an exception where the government is responsible for OUR security.

It shouldn’t be up to a corporation, foreign or domestic to secure our borders or ports.

Bad move Mr. President.

Congress has no option but to unanamously overrule Bush’s threatened veto.

This will mean the end of Bush’s agenda. 

This is another example of "Get the President" in the Dem Party and the MSM.  This is a business deal with the intention of creating another ally in the Middle East, which has to be a part of any long range strategy to defeat terrorism. If Clinton had done this, he would be hailed as a master statesman, but the jihadists against the President try to spin everything against him.  The deal was vetted through normal channels.  The pathetic hypocrisy among the Dems of their anti-Arab profiling is actually funny, in a grim way.  They will stop at nothing to try to damage the President, including harming the war on terror and betraying their country.  They should move to France, where they will fit right in.

Robert,

I thought you were against nationalized business interests? 

Rick: You got me on that one.  What are "nationalized business interests"?  Nothing is being nationalized here. This is a business deal between a British company and a UAE company to manage some of the operations at our ports.  The Dems are in the pocket of the labor unions, and the longshoremen’s union has their fingerprints all over this one.  They are afraid of anything that might bring in some modernization of our ports.  Any change scares them.

DP World is a State-Owned Business.  It’s not a public corporation - it’s a wholly-owned entity of the Emirate of Dubai.  Therefore, it’s a nationalized business interest, wouldn’t you agree?

Furthermore, you’ve said many many times on here (too many for me to count, and I’ve only been around these boards a couple weeks) that Clinton had chances to take out Bin Laden and failed, right?  What if one of those Opportunities was missed because the person running DP World - The Crown Prince of Dubai was falcon hunting with Osama Bin Laden and our CIA couldn’t risk killing Arab Royal Family members in a strike against Bin Laden.

What if all that is true . . . you’ve got a socialized business running our ports and the Crown Prince of that state goes on friendly (and fundraising) hunting trips with the man who attacked the United States of America.  If that’s all true, would you change your mind? 

Rick: No, it is a business that is owned by its govenment.  It was never private, so it never had to be nationalized. What if this was a perfect world, and everybody loved everybody else, and had everyone’s best interests at heart?  If all that were true, would you change your mind?  Hypotheticals are just that:  hypothetical.

I objected to the Chinese deal, because it involved a foreign govt buying a US company, and I strongly disagree with that.  I also objected on the basis that Chinese currency isn’t fully in the world market, so the money values are not accurate.  None of that applies in this case.  What is being purchased is a well-defined management area, not ownership.  The reportage has been less than truthful on this one, very similar to the reportage on the microwave monitoring program, which was inaccurately described as "wiretapping", "domestic spying" and  "surveilling Americans".  Let’s just tell the truth, and make decisions based on the real facts, not partisan propaganda.

You haven’t answered the question, Robert.

You’re hiding behind partisanship.  And, oddly blaming Democrats, which is bizarre, since I pulled the facts for what I asked you from the 9/11 Commission Report (bipartisan with a Republican majority) and the DP World website. 

Rick: So now your hypothesis(...what if…?) is factual?  Why the deception?  You still haven’t demonstrated cause and effect between that time and the business atmosphere that exists today. If the incident you allege occurred before 9/11, that makes a big difference.  UAE has substantially changed its attitude toward the US since then, in a positive way.  We have a big airbase in Dubai, which was used in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and which would be useful in taking out Iran’s nukes, if that becomes necessary. In light of all that, what is your reply?  In other words, if there is a real national security concern over having one foreign country doing some port management over another foreign country, that would make a difference.  Make that point, then we’ll talk.  The potential payoff here, another ally in the Middle East, is of great value.  It would be a shame to blow it over partisan fearmongering to serve the interest of the unions, whch I suspect is the real driving force behind the Dem stance, along with the usual "Get the President" strategy.

Robert,

Dubai World Ports is controlled by the royal family of the United Arab Emirates. No one else owns the company. So how is that different than the fact of Chinese controlling some of our west coast ports? Both of them are foreign governments. Just because the UAE has princes and China has chairmen makes no difference.

And unless you have a security clearance and have been briefed about the NSA spying on Americans how can you say a whole lot about it?

From what little we do know about it is that telephone and internet traffic of Americans has been intercepted by the NSA and we have a Fourth Amendment that gives us some cover from government snooping into our private affairs. Just like the instance where Bush had wanted to declare Jose Padilla a terrorist and deprive him of his day in court, just when Paddilla was about to get his day in court before the Supreme Court where it could be decided once and for all exactly what authority Bush did have, the administration then wanted to move him out of military lock up and charge him with an actual crime. Funny how that worked, huh. Bush takes the strong, beligerent approach until his authority is ultimately challenged by legitimate authority and he folds like a wet blanket.

Okay, I’ll make this very clear. 

The Defense Minister for the UAE and Crown Prince of Dubai is known to go Falcon Hunting with Osama Bin Laden and on one of these trips, his presence stopped the CIA from ordering an airstrike that would have taken him out.

That makes a direct connection between Osama and Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, something that was never established for Saddam (especially hard since Osama considered Saddam an infidel in his writings).  The Sheik is, by Dubai governmental structure then, the owner of the company which is going to be running our ports.

You’ve blamed Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden (venomously blamed him, I recall).  Are you going to give the Sheik a free pass for being on the Falcon Hunt that stayed Clinton’s hand? 

Rich: Or, he just wanted to remove the murdering scum from circulation permanently, and had to deal with the Dem wimps in order to do it.

Back at ya!  If we can’t know about the NSA because of security clearance, where do you get your information?  I elected this President to be strong on terrorism.  Other than that, except for a few miniscule tax cuts, I consider him to be far less conservative than I want.  The terrorism thing is primary, though.  Your rant about the fourth amendment is meaningless if we are all under sharia law.  Check out what we had to do here to win WWII;  you might be surprised. 

Rick: I almost forgot!  If I have to choose between commies and neutral or friendly Arabs, I’ll take the friendlies every time.

Rick: It wouldn’t have stayed my hand.  By your timeline, assuming your story is factually accurate, this incident occurred about ten years ago, give or take.  Was this really the only time Clinton claimed to be able to take out Bin Laden?  But darn it, that pesky prince was there, and he couldn’t do anything.  Sounds convenient to me.  Like the so-called "middle class tax cut".  He just couldn’t find a way to do it.  Even so, things have changed radically since then.  If you have any firm evidence that this falcon hunting is still going on, or even that it took place more than once, it might change things.  Depends on the facts.  It’s still, at best, a guilt by association charge. 

Rick: Let me clarify the last statement.  Technically, the stockholders own GM, but they don’t have anything to do with the day to day operation of the company.  Therefore, the political beliefs of any of the stockholders or even those of the CEO, are irrelevant to how the company is run.  Ditto the UAE company.  They have to follow good business practices to be successful, as I hear they are.  So, even though this prince who once went falcon hunting with Bin Laden may have nothing to do with the actual business operation, even though he is the titular head of the company.  I see your point, but question its actual relevance to the business deal. 

February, 1999.

Read this thread over again . . .  look anything up you’d like.  Read the 9/11 Commission Report.  

Again, it’s not Democrats or Liberals standing in your way - - - this time it’s socialism (state owned companies) and terrorists.  Your Double Standard is stunning. 

What I know about the NSA case and no one has disputed resulted from the leaks to the New York Times. I repeat, no one, not even Bush has said what the Times has reported is simply not true. So until you have something official that contradicts this lets not play with that. OK?

Next, what is it this administration can not do complying with our constitutional rights and the FISA law that has some kind of judicial oversight and what they would like to do?  

Once again, my question was about pre-9/11 UAE as opposed to post-9/11 UAE.  Have they done anything bad in any other country?  Any cause and effect information?  Inquiring minds want to know.  No double standard.  Since this doesn’t involve transfer of ownership of either US property or of a US company, it’s just a free market transaction.  The World Market is a free market.  No matter how goods and services are produced in any particular country, it only sells if it is of sufficient quality at a fair price.  Ditto this management company.  They either do a good job at a good price, or they don’t.  Apparently they do.  Unless you have proof of some criminal or subversive activity, there is no problem.  Or, you could be playing partisan politics.  Can you prove the UAE company is full of terrorists?  Even if that were true, they aren’t supplying the containers, they are just managing them after they are offloaded at port.  Not that I would find it acceptable if they were terrorists at the management level, but that has not been demonstrated.  I think the deal would not have been considered if that had been the case.  Unless you consider this administration soft on terrorism. 

Rich: You are wrong.  It is a fact that the NSA activity was in fact monitoring of the microwave frequency with computers for the purpose of data mining.  If anything was turned up, it was used as probable cause to do actual eavesdropping, spying and wiretapping, which was done with warrants.  What wasn’t done was obtaining warrants to do the original monitoring, which wasn’t covered under FISA, since that technology didn’t exist in 1978, when FISA was established.  It did then fall under the purview of the function of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces in wartime.  No one had their fourth amendment rights violated, although I give no constitutional rights to terrorists, foreign or domestic.  Any American who engages in terrorist activities against this country forfeits his or her constitutional rights by doing that, IMO.

The MSM and the Dems are, as usual, lying and misreporting this incident.  I don’t consider the NYT either loyal to this country or trustworthy. They should be indicted for publishing sensitive classified material, and I hope they are. 

Damn, and here I thought we were innocent until proven guilty. I guess liberals often make that mistake.

Robert, when you get back in touch with the real world, one with actual evidence of what you are saying, you know, stuff supported by facts and are able to reason through  it logically let me know. I think we could have a lot of fun debating the issues. Till then, what is it you have that you really do know for certain?

I mean so far all you have done is discount my Fourth Amendment rights and my presumtion of innocense until proven guilty why not rack up a few more.

I mean we can also dispense with my right to be confronted with evidence of any crimes I may have committed.

My right to a trial period.

My right to be confronted by my accusers.

If we dispense with all of that then what the hell are we fighting for?

Rich: If we play nicey-nicey with the terrorists, none of us will have any constitutional rights, even if we are left alive.  Nothing has been presented that you have lost any constitutional rights in this activity, unless you are communicating with terrorists.  If you are doing that, you have forfeited your rights, IMO.  Your phony "rights" argument has no content.

Rick: Just finished watching Chris Matthews on "Hardball", a partisan leftie.  He had a guy from the Coast Guard and a guy from Customs, and they assured him that security isn’t changed by this deal.  Matthews seemed surprised.  I guess he wasn’t ready for the truth.  In the port of New York, only two of the 180 port facilities would be run by the UAE company. 

1. We on the left do not claim Chris Matthews. You may not want him on the right either but he sure as hell does not belong on the left. I mean just last week he was felating Tom Delay. We don’t want any rightie’s sloppy seconds.

2. I’m not hardly advocating playing nicey nice with terrorists. What I am saying is we do not have to give up our constitutional rights to do that.

3. The Bush administration refuses to say—in public or in closed session of Congress—how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.

Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well. That step still requires a warrant from a federal judge, for which the government must supply evidence of probable cause.

And for the last time, what is it this administration wants to do that it cannot do while complying with FISA? Do you know the answer to that?

Robert,

This is something from the American Conservative.

Wow, this makes a lot of sense:

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_02_27/print/articleprint1.html

Rich: Asked and answered.  Monitoring of microwave cellphone frequencies, which wasn’t possible or necessary when FISA was established.  Not just that, but specific frequencies attached to phones known to be used by Al Qaeda.  Since the NYT treachery, this has become more difficult, as the terrorists now have switched to untraceable prepaid cellphones, making the technology even more necessary.  If the NYT had been concerned with national security above politcal partisanship, the technology wouldn’t have had to be bumped up.  Law of unintended consequences.  By their nature, these calls have to be responded to almost instantly. 

Your link doesn’t sound very conservative to me.  At last report, five of the bodies were eventually identified as terrorists, making the raid a success. I hope we kill the terrorists before they kill us.  If we don’t, all this intellectualizing is meaningless.  If you don’t like what the President is doing, come up with a real plan instead of just sniping and obstructing.  Cut and run is not a plan, btw.  Appeasing the terrorists is not a plan.  Assisting them in their media campaign by echoing their talking points or by giving them talking points in your partisan war against the President is not a plan.  Telling us how to kill more terrorists faster would be a plan that might work.  Got one?

RichM:

Damn, and here I thought we were innocent until proven guilty. I guess liberals often make that mistake.

Do you guys on the left ever get tired of this childish prattle, or do you just think everybody else is that stupid?  Even warranted searches or surveillance doesn’t require proof of guilt, just suspicion.

Carrick:  Right on.  Innocent until proven guilty only applies in court.  Understandable, because the lefties think the GWOT is a law enforcement matter.  We are at war, and they just don’t get it.

Carrick,

The standard is just a little higher than suspicion. this is what the Constitution says is the standard: "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Robert,

The source is the American Conservative.  I guess the right is not as monolithic as we had first thought.

Rich: Asked and answered.  Monitoring of microwave cellphone frequencies, which wasn’t possible or necessary when FISA was established.  Not just that, but specific frequencies attached to phones known to be used by Al Qaeda

What is it about 5 thousand calls and emails listened into that you do not understand?

Probable cause still does not even imply guilt.  Nor for that matter does the acquisition of a warrant for search or seizure even give you a uniform right to even know that it has occurred.  Secondly, requiring judicial warrants for surveillance is a relatively new thing.  Purely domestic warrantless searches and surveillance have occurred as recently as the Clinton administration, but were routine under J Edgar Hoover’s FBI.
 
The NSA surveillance itself is international in scope, even if one leg of the communications being monitored is domestic.  As Robert108 points out, the nature of the surveillance is purposefully aimed at monitoring individuals and organizations listed in the 2001 AUMF, and hence are not per se law-enforcement related.

I agree with the need to enforce warrants in purely domestic cases and in cases involving law enforcement, especially when charges get filed.  I disagree that potentially valuable international intelligence to or from the US should need warrants. (I deliberately skirt the question of whether they are currently required given the AUMF and Bush’s inherent wartime powers.)

And before you get apoplectic, I’ll point that Congress appears to agree with me on this one, and probably will eventually act to specifically authorize this type of surveillance under FISA.  It’s an irony that FISA already allows warrantless international and domestic surveillance, except in the case of terrorists, which in 1979 was viewed to be primarily a law-enforcement issue.

Rich: I understand and approve.  What part of the war on terror don’t you understand?  I don’t care what the number of terrorist calls is that are surveilled.  I want the terrorists stopped and killed before they kill us.  This is not a domestic law enforcement matter, which involves almost exclusively US citizens.  That would involve capture, trial and punishment.  In war, it’s kill or be killed, involving foreign nationals and domestic traitors who aid and abet them.  See the difference?