Bush Set to Approve Takeover of 9 Military Plants by Dubai

[BBond]

Failure is no impedement to george w. bush.

The uproar over the Dubai Ports deal, which would have given control of operations at several major U.S. ports to a state owned entity of Dubai, a nation that funded the terrorist attacks of 9/11, isn't stopping our idiot-in-chief from attempting to give that same terrorist funding nation control of major U.S. military parts manufacturers. Only this time bush wants to sidestep all of the pesky oversight as well as the protests against what is as dangerous and stupid a move as the previous one.

Read on, America, and please, WTFU again. Stop this moron from handing over segments of our critical security infrastructure to some of the very same people who helped bring you 9/11.

Just whose side is bush on?

Bush Set to Approve Takeover of 9 Military Plants by Dubai

By JIM RUTENBERG and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: April 28, 2006

WASHINGTON, April 27 ? President Bush is expected on Friday to announce his approval of a deal under which a Dubai-owned company would take control of nine plants in the United States that manufacture parts for American military vehicles and aircraft, say two administration officials familiar with the terms of the deal.

The officials, who were granted anonymity so they could speak freely about something the president had not yet announced, said that the final details had not yet been set and that Mr. Bush might put conditions on the transaction to keep military technology in the United States.

But his action is almost certain to attract scrutiny in Congress, because of the political furor that erupted over the administration's approval of a deal earlier this spring that would have given another Dubai-owned company, Dubai Ports World, leases to operate several American port terminals through its acquisition of a British company, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

Dubai Ports agreed to drop the port deal after it became clear that Republicans were abandoning Mr. Bush and opposing the takeover.

In this case, the plants in question are owned by Doncasters Group Ltd., a British company that is being purchased for $1.2 billion from the Royal Bank of Scotland Group by Dubai International Capital, which is owned by the United Arab Emirate government.

Because the plants make turbine blades for tanks and aircraft, the deal was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which sent it on to Mr. Bush himself for a decision, a step used only when the potential security risks or political considerations are particularly acute.

Administration officials alerted Congress that the deal would go through the committee's review process in an effort to head off the kind of public debate that surrounded the ports deal.

Opponents of the ports transactions argued that the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks had filtered money through the United Arab Emirates, where Dubai is the major shipping center. Mr. Bush argued that blocking the deal would have sent the wrong message to a friendly Arab state. His support, however, was not enough to quell the political furor.

One official who was briefed on the Doncasters transaction said there would be provisions in the agreement protecting American military secrets. But it was unclear whether that would satisfy Congressional objections. With nine Doncasters plants in Georgia and Connecticut making parts for American military contractors, the prospect of a takeover by the Dubai company has already caused nervousness among some lawmakers.

Representative John Barrow, Democrat of Georgia, likened the Doncasters deal to "outsourcing" part of the nation's industrial-military complex.

But Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security and one of the foremost critics of the ports deal, said on Thursday that he would not necessarily have a problem this time around, in large part because the White House had given the deal a thorough review.

"It's a significant improvement over what happened before," Mr. King said. "It's been much more thorough, much more detailed."

A senior Republican Congressional aide who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the matter, said he did not believe the president's approval of the deal would cause quite the same stir as the ports deal.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

I do not exactly know where I stand on this. While I could see the reasons why everyone got all upset about this company taking over ports (specifically because that would be an easy entry point in to the US) but this is taking over a company that makes turbines and other such things. Short of them designing flaws in the parts so they fail at a future critical time I am not sure where national security comes into play.

Look, read my posts, I am not even close to a supporter of Bush or this administration; however I do think that reacting in outrage about deals like this simply because they are Muslim owned company is not the right thing to do. I guess my questions would be: Does this company have the knowledge to be able to run a industrial-military complex? What are the political gains for this administration by doing this? Should the USA limit all foreign investment in CONUS companies that make things for our military or civilian infrastructure? Should the USA out right ban anyone of a Muslim decent from owning and operating a business in the US?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I do not exactly know where I stand on this. While I could see the reasons why everyone got all upset about this company taking over ports (specifically because that would be an easy entry point in to the US) but this is taking over a company that makes turbines and other such things. Short of them designing flaws in the parts so they fail at a future critical time I am not sure where national security comes into play.

Look, read my posts, I am not even close to a supporter of Bush or this administration; however I do think that reacting in outrage about deals like this simply because they are Muslim owned company is not the right thing to do. I guess my questions would be: Does this company have the knowledge to be able to run a industrial-military complex? What are the political gains for this administration by doing this? Should the USA limit all foreign investment in CONUS companies that make things for our military or civilian infrastructure? Should the USA out right ban anyone of a Muslim decent from owning and operating a business in the US?

I think National security comes into play with increased risk of stealling the designs.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I love how dumbya keeps shooting himself in the foot (god knows dead-eye dickie could do it). Just when his approval ratings didn't look like they could go any lower, he pulls this out of his puckered hole. Keep up the good work dumbya, you're doin' a heckava job.

 

[smashp]

10$ says once dubya is out of office he gets an advisory role on a couple companies in UAE.

ALA Daddy

nothing like greasing the pockets.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: smack Down

I think National security comes into play with increased risk of stealling the designs.

What we are worried that terrorists will start building turbines? Most of our top secret things are what we called SCI (secret compartmented information) which means one company only makes a small part and only those in government that have the clearance ever get to see the big picture. Sure there is the risk that they could steal the designs for a tank turbine and sell it to someone (N. Korea, Iran, etc) but that might be hard to do considering all the scrutiny that would be on them.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

Originally posted by: smack Down

I think National security comes into play with increased risk of stealling the designs.

What we are worried that terrorists will start building turbines? Most of our top secret things are what we called SCI (secret compartmented information) which means one company only makes a small part and only those in government that have the clearance ever get to see the big picture. Sure there is the risk that they could steal the designs for a tank turbine and sell it to someone (N. Korea, Iran, etc) but that might be hard to do considering all the scrutiny that would be on them.

And the government is *so* good at scruitinizing everything perfectly. Why introduce the possibility?

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

Originally posted by: smack Down

I think National security comes into play with increased risk of stealling the designs.

What we are worried that terrorists will start building turbines? Most of our top secret things are what we called SCI (secret compartmented information) which means one company only makes a small part and only those in government that have the clearance ever get to see the big picture. Sure there is the risk that they could steal the designs for a tank turbine and sell it to someone (N. Korea, Iran, etc) but that might be hard to do considering all the scrutiny that would be on them.

Sensitive Compartmentalized Information

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

Originally posted by: smack Down

I think National security comes into play with increased risk of stealling the designs.

What we are worried that terrorists will start building turbines? Most of our top secret things are what we called SCI (secret compartmented information) which means one company only makes a small part and only those in government that have the clearance ever get to see the big picture. Sure there is the risk that they could steal the designs for a tank turbine and sell it to someone (N. Korea, Iran, etc) but that might be hard to do considering all the scrutiny that would be on them.

Yup, SCI must be why they want 9 plants.

 

[fitzov]

Aren't there any American companies that do this? Even if we pay more, the money at least goes to American workers and we can tax the company.

Fill me in on what I am missing here.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: fitzov
Aren't there any American companies that do this? Even if we pay more, the money at least goes to American workers and we can tax the company.

Fill me in on what I am missing here.

Here's what you're missing. These people have globalized already. They are no more American than GM or Ford. They go where they can make money and America be damned. Then they wrap themselves in the flag while they profit from their global adventures all so we keep sending our kids off to die to protect their global interests.

 

[1EZduzit]

You always have the danger of intentional sabotage to consider in a deal like this.

 

[kage69]

I love how dumbya keeps shooting himself in the foot (god knows dead-eye dickie could do it). Just when his approval ratings didn't look like they could go any lower, he pulls this out of his puckered hole. Keep up the good work dumbya, you're doin' a heckava job.

That's pretty much exactly what I thought when I read that headline. I actually feel sorry for my hard-core Repub friends now...

 

[robphelan]

dumbya sure has a hardon for Dubai. i agree with smashp's post - a year or so after he;s out of office, he'll wind up as a 'consultant' for a dubai owned company.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: kage69

I love how dumbya keeps shooting himself in the foot (god knows dead-eye dickie could do it). Just when his approval ratings didn't look like they could go any lower, he pulls this out of his puckered hole. Keep up the good work dumbya, you're doin' a heckava job.

That's pretty much exactly what I thought when I read that headline. I actually feel sorry for my hard-core Repub friends now...

Sorry, I really don't. They voted this gang of thugs into the white house and beyond. Reap what you sow. And they are reaping mounds of nature's fertilizer.

 

[5150Joker]

Israel turns around and sells sensitive US military technology to the highest bidder all the time. Why the outcry about Dubai? Also the OP alleges Dubai's government direclty funded the 9/11 terrorists, where's your proof of these outlandish accusations?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Israel turns around and sells sensitive US military technology to the highest bidder all the time. Why the outcry about Dubai? Also the OP alleges Dubai's government direclty funded the 9/11 terrorists, where's your proof of these outlandish accusations?

Why don't you take an uncharacteristic leap of inquisitiveness and Google this search term -- Dubai 9/11 -- then tell me.

:roll:

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Israel turns around and sells sensitive US military technology to the highest bidder all the time. Why the outcry about Dubai? Also the OP alleges Dubai's government direclty funded the 9/11 terrorists, where's your proof of these outlandish accusations?

Why don't you take an uncharacteristic leap of inquisitiveness and Google this search term -- Dubai 9/11 -- then tell me.

:roll:

You made the allegation in the original post, you should have to back it up. It's not my duty to waste my time finding evidence for your bunk theories. You still didn't answer my question about Israel selling sensitive US military secrets as well.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Israel turns around and sells sensitive US military technology to the highest bidder all the time. Why the outcry about Dubai? Also the OP alleges Dubai's government direclty funded the 9/11 terrorists, where's your proof of these outlandish accusations?

PS If Israel is selling sensitive US military technology to the highest bidder, or if the bush administration is still treating AIPAC (another term you can Google) like they are part of the U.S. government, then they should all be held accountable -- just like Dubai.

BTW, do you have a specific reason for actually wanting to give control of sensitive military installations and information to foreign governments?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Israel turns around and sells sensitive US military technology to the highest bidder all the time. Why the outcry about Dubai? Also the OP alleges Dubai's government direclty funded the 9/11 terrorists, where's your proof of these outlandish accusations?

Why don't you take an uncharacteristic leap of inquisitiveness and Google this search term -- Dubai 9/11 -- then tell me.

:roll:

You made the allegation in the original post, you should have to back it up. It's not my duty to waste my time finding evidence for your bunk theories.

Right, in other words you don't want to face the truth and look like a complete fool.

For the rest of you, Google the search term and see the truth for yourselves.

Hint: Where was Osama on September 10, 2001???

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Israel turns around and sells sensitive US military technology to the highest bidder all the time. Why the outcry about Dubai? Also the OP alleges Dubai's government direclty funded the 9/11 terrorists, where's your proof of these outlandish accusations?

PS If Israel is selling sensitive US military technology to the highest bidder, or if the bush administration is still treating AIPAC (another term you can Google) like they are part of the U.S. government, then they should all be held accountable -- just like Dubai.

BTW, do you have a specific reason for actually wanting to give control of sensitive military installations and information to foreign governments?

The problem is you're acting like this is a new phenomenon. It's clear you don't really care about the core issue and are just politically motivated to sling mud at the current administration. Since you're such a fan of google, why don't you look up how the US military has been dependent on foreign made components for a very long time. This isn't something new at all. You are nothing more than a troll.

P.S. I'm still waiting on your hard evidence that links the Dubai govt. as a financier of 9/11.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Israel turns around and sells sensitive US military technology to the highest bidder all the time. Why the outcry about Dubai? Also the OP alleges Dubai's government direclty funded the 9/11 terrorists, where's your proof of these outlandish accusations?

PS If Israel is selling sensitive US military technology to the highest bidder, or if the bush administration is still treating AIPAC (another term you can Google) like they are part of the U.S. government, then they should all be held accountable -- just like Dubai.

BTW, do you have a specific reason for actually wanting to give control of sensitive military installations and information to foreign governments?

The problem is you're acting like this is a new phenomenon. It's clear you don't really care about the core issue and are just politically motivated to sling mud at the current administration. Since you're such a fan of google, why don't you look up how the US military has been dependent on foreign made components for a very long time. This isn't something new at all. You are nothing more than a troll.

P.S. I'm still waiting on your hard evidence that links the Dubai govt. as a financier of 9/11.

Let me see if I understand you correctly...allow Bush to sell-out the country because other people have done it in the past? Mmmmm...nah.

 

[BBond]

Here's one for you, Joker, that jerk off president you idolize attacked a nation on false evidence of a connection with bin Laden. Why hasn't he attacked Dubai? Why does he insist on giving away sensitive port and military installations to a nation that had connections with bin Laden?

9/11 report cited possible bin Laden, U.A.E. ties
CIA was ?irate? over how ally handled incident at hunting camp

WASHINGTON - The United States raised concerns with the United Arab Emirates seven years ago about possible ties between officials in that country and Osama bin Laden, according to a section of the Sept. 11 commission?s report that details a possible missed opportunity to kill the al-Qaida leader.

Republicans and Democrats alike are raising concerns this week about the Bush administration?s decision to let a U.A.E.-operated company take over operations at six American ports, in part citing ties the Sept. 11 hijackers had to the Persian Gulf country.

President Bush has called the U.A.E. a close partner on the war on terror since Sept. 11, and his aides have listed numerous examples of the country?s help.

The Sept. 11 commission?s report released last year also raised concerns U.A.E. officials were directly associating with bin Laden as recently as 1999.

Hunting camp cited
The report states U.S. intelligence believed that bin Laden was visiting an area in the Afghan desert in February 1999 near a hunting camp used by U.A.E. officials, and that the U.S. military planned a missile strike.

Intelligence from local tribal sources indicated ?bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emirates,? the report said.

?National technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of bin Laden?s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely,? the report said.

The missile attack was never launched, and bin Laden moved on, the report said.

A month later, top White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke ?called a U.A.E. official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden,? the report said.

Anger at CIA
CIA officials hoped to continue staking out the Afghan camp in hopes bin Laden would return and a possible strike could be launched.

But ?imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke?s phone call, the camp was hurriedly dismantled and the site was deserted,? the report said.

CIA officials were ?irate? and ?thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden, the report said.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat, asked Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt if he was aware of the 9-11 commission?s assertion that the United Arab Emirates represents ?a persistent counterterrorism problem? for the United States.

Kimmitt replied that administration figures involved in the decision to approve the deal ?looked very carefully? at information from the intelligence community.

?Any time a foreign-government controlled company comes in,? Kimmitt said, ?the intelligence assessment is of both the country and the company.?

?Just raise your hand if anybody talked to the 9-11 commission,? Levin told the administration representatives at the witness table. Nobody raised a hand.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Link for those who can't think

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Israel turns around and sells sensitive US military technology to the highest bidder all the time. Why the outcry about Dubai? Also the OP alleges Dubai's government direclty funded the 9/11 terrorists, where's your proof of these outlandish accusations?

PS If Israel is selling sensitive US military technology to the highest bidder, or if the bush administration is still treating AIPAC (another term you can Google) like they are part of the U.S. government, then they should all be held accountable -- just like Dubai.

BTW, do you have a specific reason for actually wanting to give control of sensitive military installations and information to foreign governments?

The problem is you're acting like this is a new phenomenon. It's clear you don't really care about the core issue and are just politically motivated to sling mud at the current administration. Since you're such a fan of google, why don't you look up how the US military has been dependent on foreign made components for a very long time. This isn't something new at all. You are nothing more than a troll.

P.S. I'm still waiting on your hard evidence that links the Dubai govt. as a financier of 9/11.

Let me see if I understand you correctly...allow Bush to sell-out the country because other people have done it in the past? Mmmmm...nah.

Oh the hypocrisy of some of you libs:

n this case, the plants in question are owned by Doncasters Group Ltd., a British company that is being purchased for $1.2 billion from the Royal Bank of Scotland Group by Dubai International Capital, which is owned by the United Arab Emirate government.

 

[BBond]

Let me guess, Joker, you're ex-military and you currently work "in the Washington DC area", right?

Do you work for the Lincoln Group? Or is it one of the other myriad bush administration propaganda outlets?