PDA

View Full Version : Lawmakers Decry Ports Takeover - aka Bush has lost f&cking Mind!


Rocketta
Feb 20th, 2006, 12:11 AM
Yeah I know that's not much to lose but still :fiery:

Lawmakers Decry Ports Takeover
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 13 minutes ago
U.S. terms for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday.

"I'm aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., told The Associated Press.

"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else, how are they going to guard against corruption?" King said.

King spoke in response to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's comments Sunday about conditions of the sale. King said he learned about the government's terms for approving the sale from meetings with senior Bush administration officials.

Chertoff defended the security review of Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates, the company given permission to take over the port operations. Chertoff said the government typically builds in "certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns." But Chertoff declined to discuss specifics saying that information is classified.

"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff said on ABC's "This Week."

London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., was bought last week by DP World, a state-owned business. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

A Miami company, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., has filed suit in a Florida court challenging the deal. A subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., the Miami company maintains it the suit disclosed Saturday evening that it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government under the sale.

"We are aware of the lawsuit, but cannot comment until our legal teams have a chance to review it," Michael Seymour, president of the North American arm of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, said Sunday in the company's initial response to the lawsuit.

He noted that his company "is itself a foreign-owned terminal operator that has long worked with U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States."

"We are confident that the DP World purchase will ensure that our operations continue to meet all relevant standards in the U.S. through ongoing collaboration between the port operators and American, British, Australian and port security officials throughout the world," Seymour said in a statement telephoned to the AP.

Lawmakers from both parties are questioning the sale as a possible risk to national security.

"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now," Graham said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), on CBS' "Face the Nation," said, "It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, (to) take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Arab journalists in an interview Friday at the State Department, that it was "the considered opinion of the U.S. government that this can go forward." She pledged to work with Congress because "perhaps people will need better explanation and will need to understand some of the process that we have gone through."

At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.

"Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings," Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition." "We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system," he added.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who is working on legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operation in the U.S., said Chertoff's comments showed him that the administration "just does not get it."

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y. joined some family members of Sept. 11 victims at a news conference Sunday to urge President Bush to personally intervene. The president "should override the agreement and conduct a special investigation into the matter," Schumer said.

Dubai Ports World should not be excluded automatically from such a deal because it is based in the UAE, Chertoff said.

Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

Dubai Ports World has said it intends to "maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." The UAE's foreign minister has described his country as an important U.S. ally in fighting terrorism.

"I would hope that our friends in Abu Dhabi would not be offended by the fact that in our democracy, we debate these things," Rice said in the interview with the Arab journalists.

Rocketta
Feb 20th, 2006, 12:14 AM
The funniest comment I heard was from the brother of someone killed on 9/11 - he said why doesn't Bush outsource the secret service to an Arab country and see how safe he feels. :tape:

The sad part is if his administration doesn't back away from this...they are just going to pass legislation prohibiting major ports from being run by companies that are not based in the states and that's probably not the best. :shrug:

*JR*
Feb 20th, 2006, 12:36 AM
Sorry, this is a bunch of PP (Political Pandering). Whoever owns the port facilities, dangerous cargoes (and drugs) are loaded onto the ship in ports ovaseas. So what matters is the screening of the containers when ships arrive here. Which is a government responsibility (currently done with only 5% of them per news reports, which clearly should be increased).

The dockworkers will probably be the same ppl regardless of who the corporate bosses are. (Americans, who are unionized members of the International Longshoremens Association). And (as I believe jbone mentioned in the other thread about this) the UAE isn't very radical anyhow, and certainly not since 9/11. Much ado about nothing (except the next election, of course).

SelesFan70
Feb 20th, 2006, 01:45 AM
I posted this same thread, Rocketta...but I guess the folks on WTAWorld and the main stream press are more concerned about an accidental hunting accident when THIS is the issue that can really "get" Bush.

SelesFan70
Feb 20th, 2006, 01:50 AM
Or if Paris Hilton has gottin rid of the crabs yet...that thread would have 12 pages on here :mad: :p

And let's not forget the 43 threads on Venus and Serena... :confused: I guess people are disconnected and they are okay with that. :shrug: Oh, well...alls I can do is write my senators (Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr) and implore them to block this.

*JR*
Feb 20th, 2006, 02:11 AM
alls I can do is write my senators (Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr) and implore them to block this.
But Liddy's husband (Bob Dole) is probably a paid lobbyist for UAE owned companies, like he is for a lot of big money interests in Washington. :p

Rocketta
Feb 20th, 2006, 03:18 AM
Sorry, this is a bunch of PP (Political Pandering). Whoever owns the port facilities, dangerous cargoes (and drugs) are loaded onto the ship in ports ovaseas. So what matters is the screening of the containers when ships arrive here. Which is a government responsibility (currently done with only 5% of them per news reports, which clearly should be increased).

The dockworkers will probably be the same ppl regardless of who the corporate bosses are. (Americans, who are unionized members of the International Longshoremens Association). And (as I believe jbone mentioned in the other thread about this) the UAE isn't very radical anyhow, and certainly not since 9/11. Much ado about nothing (except the next election, of course).

It's not the lowly dock worker that is the worry but the middle management and top management that will surely be from the middle east. the majority of which will be great employees but it's that one that makes it bad for everyone.

Also, it's the image of it all...it doesn't inspire confidence...You can't declare terrorist warnings left and right and then turn over your major ports to a company from the area you declare we need a terrorist warning from? :scratch:

RVD
Feb 20th, 2006, 04:01 AM
:lol:

Again I ask, Why do we even have Homeland Security?! :shrug:
The whole thing is a farce. :tape:

*JR*
Feb 20th, 2006, 02:01 PM
It's not the lowly dock worker that is the worry but the middle management and top management that will surely be from the middle east. the majority of which will be great employees but it's that one that makes it bad for everyone.
You apparently don't know how the longshoremen's union operates. If a manager (top, middle, whatever) said one day: "Uh, let these guys here unload those 2 containers ova there", they'd shut down the entire port B4 they agreed.

Also, it's the image of it all...it doesn't inspire confidence...You can't declare terrorist warnings left and right and then turn over your major ports to a company from the area you declare we need a terrorist warning from? :scratch:
If the facts make something a non-issue, does one then fall back on symbolism? And your words highlighted in bold are virtually the exact equivilant of ethnic profiling. (Note please, that you didn't even say "country", just "area").
:confused:

SelesFan70
Feb 22nd, 2006, 05:26 AM
If the facts make something a non-issue, does one then fall back on symbolism? And your words highlighted in bold are virtually the exact equivilant of ethnic profiling. (Note please, that you didn't even say "country", just "area"). :confused:

Okay, Bush did a brilliant end-around the Democrats who are in desperate need of some brownie points with the American public on "Homeland Security" and did to them what they do to everyone...he branded them a racists! Brilliant! :worship:

However, he didn't account for even the most conservative of Republicans on being against this (Rush Limbaugh (nominally against), Michelle Malkin, etc.)! Besides, if Jimmy Carter is for it...it can't be good for America! And he can brand me a racist all day...I really don't care. I've been called worse! It's a bad idea, and I don't care how much the UAE has cooperated on war on terror.

*Note SelesFan70 reserves the right to change his mind if given enough facts to support Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush's, and JR's view* (I just wanted JR to know he's agreeing with Condoleezza and George W. :lol: )

Rocketta
Feb 22nd, 2006, 05:32 AM
You apparently don't know how the longshoremen's union operates. If a manager (top, middle, whatever) said one day: "Uh, let these guys here unload those 2 containers ova there", they'd shut down the entire port B4 they agreed.


If the facts make something a non-issue, does one then fall back on symbolism? And your words highlighted in bold are virtually the exact equivilant of ethnic profiling. (Note please, that you didn't even say "country", just "area").
:confused:

Here's what I know......As unloyal to America as American companies are that's how loyal people of the middle east are to their beliefs. Do I think the majority mean no harm, you bet. However, if the president can promise that only his constituents get harmed if he's wrong then I don't have a problem with it. For the record I'm not for outsourcing period. I don't care what color/ethnicity/nationality they are.

Pureracket
Feb 22nd, 2006, 08:18 AM
Hey you idiot *Values Voters* are ya happy now? Do you feel safer now?

Pureracket
Feb 22nd, 2006, 01:06 PM
"And so, look, I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction. But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully." George W. Bush

When exactly, was congress kicked out of our government?

Bush Transcript rawstory.com

griffin
Feb 22nd, 2006, 03:09 PM
"And so, look, I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction. But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully." George W. Bush

When exactly, was congress kicked out of our government?

Bush Transcript rawstory.com

Not to mention the fact that the Bush administration doesn't have a great track record on assessing threats to our security.

I don't care if its the UK, the UAE or anyone else, handing over our ports to a company owned by a foreign government should not be an option

ys
Feb 22nd, 2006, 03:41 PM
You don't get it.. Whatever Bush is doing in his 5 years of service, deliberately or not, serves one very certain thing - Arabs making more money.. It's scary to imagine how many billion dollars of extra money did Arabs make because of Bush policies...

griffin
Feb 22nd, 2006, 03:54 PM
We get it, believe me.

Hulet
Feb 22nd, 2006, 04:10 PM
The democrats stance on this issue really makes me feel uncomfortable. Just objecting the takeover because the company is owned by Arabs/Arab state is really going to far.
Would Senator Menendez support a plan to vet border-patrols on Mexican-American border to insure that they are not hispanics too? Would Senator Schumer object to the sitting of Jewish judges sitting to hear the case of Israeli spies in U.S.? Or is that too far an analogy? :confused: All I know is that I am with Pres Bush on this one. :)

*JR*
Feb 22nd, 2006, 04:11 PM
Here's what I know......As unloyal to America as American companies are that's how loyal people of the middle east are to their beliefs. Do I think the majority mean no harm, you bet. However, if the president can promise that only his constituents get harmed if he's wrong then I don't have a problem with it. For the record I'm not for outsourcing period. I don't care what color/ethnicity/nationality they are.
Its not outsourcing (which I also oppose) as the workers will be the same American longshoremen.


I don't care if its the UK, the UAE or anyone else, handing over our ports to a company owned by a foreign government should not be an option
Some are already foreign owned, I believe.


*Note SelesFan70 reserves the right to change his mind if given enough facts to support Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush's, and JR's view* (I just wanted JR to know he's agreeing with Condoleezza and George W.)
Even broken clocks are right twice a day. :p

griffin
Feb 22nd, 2006, 04:24 PM
*JR* - "foreign owned" and "owned by foreign governments" are not the same thing.

Hulet, a better analogy would be handing over US border patrol operations to Mexico, or letting Israel itself provide the judges and run the courts for that trial. And I'd bet both Senators would object loudly.

Rocketta
Feb 22nd, 2006, 04:36 PM
Its not outsourcing (which I also oppose) as the workers will be the same American longshoremen.


Some are already foreign owned, I believe.


Even broken clocks are right twice a day. :p

do you really think that the company will use American workers only? Come on now they will find ways to bring *specialized* workers in....for cheap pay of course.

Anyway, here's the latest from the big dummy...

Bush Didn't Know About Ports Deal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_34;_ylt=AkfssLYlREnjwizVPwo5_iITv5U B;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

AP - 56 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday. Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

:shrug:

Infiniti2001
Feb 22nd, 2006, 04:54 PM
When exactly, was congress kicked out of our government?



When dickhead became president :tape: Impeach!! Impeach!!!! :fiery:

*JR*
Feb 22nd, 2006, 04:56 PM
do you really think that the company will use American workers only? Come on now they will find ways to bring *specialized* workers in....for cheap pay of course.

Rocky, once again you don't seem to understand how the longshoremen's union operates. They would literally shut down an entire port B4 allowing the bosses to allow these socalled "specialized workers" to do a minute of work like unloading containers. (Even if they were going 2B paid anyway, as they'd see it as a "foot in the door" to slowly take away their jobs). And Homeland Security could screen all new workers. (Maybe putting FEMA's "Brownie" in charge of that). :tape:

Griff, in the UAE and many other non-Western countries, the government effectively controls the big companies, so it makes no difference. Lets take the current Dubai tournament. The owner is Dubai Duty Free, a business that runs such shops in airports around the Arab world. But is in turn owned by the UAE's Department of Civil Aviation (as is their national airline). Western concepts of the difference between business and government don't apply.

griffin
Feb 22nd, 2006, 05:24 PM
Griff, in the UAE and many other non-Western countries, the government effectively controls the big companies, so it makes no difference. Lets take the current Dubai tournament. The owner is Dubai Duty Free, a business that runs such shops in airports around the Arab world. But is in turn owned by the UAE's Department of Civil Aviation (as is their national airline). Western concepts of the difference between business and government don't apply.

Gee, you mean other cultures have different ideas than we do? People don't all think/understand the world like Americans do? Thanks, my poor little brain might not have figured that out on its own.

:rolleyes:

The do apply here. I don't have a problem with nationalized businesses or industries in general. I do have a problem with a foreign country owning our ports. Whether that ownership results from a cultural or political construct isn't relevant.

*JR*
Feb 22nd, 2006, 06:38 PM
I don't have a problem with nationalized businesses or industries in general. I do have a problem with a foreign country owning our ports.
By definition, there's little (if any) difference between a nationalized company and its "parent" government. And all jokes aside, port security is the job of the US Government. Who'll still have the informal help of the (unionized) longshoremen, regardless of who the corporate suits are.

lizchris
Feb 22nd, 2006, 07:07 PM
:lol:

Again I ask, Why do we even have Homeland Security?! :shrug:
The whole thing is a farce. :tape:


So Bush's friends and contributors can have jobs.:rolleyes: :mad:

griffin
Feb 22nd, 2006, 07:20 PM
By definition, there's little (if any) difference between a nationalized company and its "parent" government.

Yes. This is my point and my problem with this sale. The distinction I was making was not about who the owner was but what they were buying (if Dubai wants to take over the Filene's block her in Downtown Crossing, they're welcome to it)

Hulet
Feb 22nd, 2006, 07:26 PM
Hulet, a better analogy would be handing over US border patrol operations to Mexico, or letting Israel itself provide the judges and run the courts for that trial. And I'd bet both Senators would object loudly.
Yup, I agree. And, I have no problem with a U.S. government stricting foreign ownership in sensetive areas. What I find very uncomfortable is the reason for objecting this takeover: somehow the fact that the company has Arab connection makes it objectionable in the eyes of democrats. If this specific company was owned by Syrians/Iranians/Libiyans, I could somehow understand the reasoning. But, as far as I know, the U.A.E is as reliable an ally as is possible for U.S. to find in the Middle East. Just blanking them out because they are Arabs is stupid and very frustrating to those moderate Arabs who believe that they can form a partnership with U.S. and other Western countries. If every Arab is supposed to be untrusted just for being Arab, why bother?

What this tells me is the desperation of Democrats. For years, they have been trying to stick something on Bush and his administration. Everything so far has mostly failed. Now, it seems that they have decided to be more Republican than the Republicans on this issue. That's too sad in my eyes. That's why I thought Kerry winning in 2004 would have been bad for the rest of the world and this is why I think a democrat president in the white house after 2008 is bad too.

Just an outsider opinion.

griffin
Feb 22nd, 2006, 07:34 PM
Yup, I agree. And, I have no problem with a U.S. government stricting foreign ownership in sensetive areas. What I find very uncomfortable is the reason for objecting this takeover: somehow the fact that the company has Arab connection makes it objectionable in the eyes of democrats. If this specific company was owned by Syrians/Iranians/Libiyans, I could somehow understand the reasoning. But, as far as I know, the U.A.E is as reliable an ally as is possible for U.S. to find in the Middle East. Just blanking them out because they are Arabs is stupid and very frustrating to those moderate Arabs who believe that they can form a partnership with U.S. and other Western countries. If every Arab is supposed to be untrusted just for being Arab, why bother?

What this tells me is the desperation of Democrats. For years, they have been trying to stick something on Bush and his administration. Everything so far has mostly failed. Now, it seems that they have decided to be more Republican than the Republicans on this issue. That's too sad in my eyes. That's why I thought Kerry winning in 2004 would have been bad for the rest of the world and this is why I think a democrat president in the white house after 2008 is bad too.

Just an outsider opinion.

For what it's worth, I know that the UAE have been better friends to us than others, but I also know that some terrorist groups have used the UAE as a financial and transportation hub.

It's also not just the Democrats that are objecting - loudly - to this one. And while the rhetoric would be less strident had a Western European nation been the country in question, and i agree that's an unfortunate bias, there still would have been widespread criticism and an attempt to prevent the sale.

SelesFan70
Feb 22nd, 2006, 08:10 PM
The whole argument that we need "friends" in the Arab world is just a lame excuse. Frankly, I don't want to be friends with countries whose majority regional poplulation considers me an infidel and wants to kill me because of my western values. The thought that terrorists would be less likely to strike if we inter-twined ourselves with the UAE because it would harm fellow Arabs is ridiculous. Look at what the Sunnis in Iraq did to the Shiite Mosque. The Saudis are our "friends", right? Let's let them do airport security. :help:

But it is hilarious to see the Democrats all of a sudden admitting we have enemies in the Middle East. What took them so long?

http://deephousepage.com/smilies/bangdesk.gif

griffin
Feb 22nd, 2006, 08:16 PM
But it is hilarious to see the Democrats all of a sudden admitting we have enemies in the Middle East.



We know there are enemies in the Middle East, we just don't think invading is going to fix it :wavey:

What I find hilarious is Republicans finally realizing the Bush administration is whacked :)

Infiniti2001
Feb 22nd, 2006, 08:30 PM
We know there are enemies in the Middle East, we just don't think invading is going to fix it :wavey:

What I find hilarious is Republicans finally realizing the Bush administration is whacked :)

:worship: :bowdown:

Hulet
Feb 22nd, 2006, 08:33 PM
I feel very strange with this whole issue: on the one hand I am glad that the leaders of countries like UAE has to learn the hard way that cooperation with the world's superpower won't automatically make them an ally and won't even make them trusted partners. Syria learned this the hard way: it was torturing its citizen on behalf of Americans and in the end that didn't do it any good when push come to shove. Same thing with Iran. Now to UAE.

On the other hand, as I indicated in my first post in this thread, albeit with an over-stretched analogy, I am really uncomfortable with this argument that, since one or two of the 9/11 bombers was from UAE, then the rest of the country must be. This sends the wrong signal to Arab world.

Anyways, this is not my country or my port so may be I shouldn't interfer. You guys know what is good for yourself.

*JR*
Feb 22nd, 2006, 08:45 PM
Besides *conveniently ignoring* that the (again, unionized, and "don't take no guff") longshoremen would love to bust their bosses on any "funny business" and be lauded as heroes, Griffin and Hulet both miss something else here. (OK, I forgot to mention it). ;)

Certain Executive Orders were enabled by Congress and signed by Nixon circa 1970. (Truman not having them being why his seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War didn't stand). As Gitmo shows, 9/11 only increased Presidential Power re. national security.

And the "Kerry Court" (the one made possible by dumbfuck's '04 excuse for a campaign) certainly ain't rolling that back. Meaning that (as in the Panama Canal treaty, BTW) this or another President can sieze ports, that canal, civilian 747's, etc. if s/he deems that national security warrants it.

And if anything, Dubai Ports International will probably increase port security, just to shut up their critics if nothing else. Which (given how lax it is now in the hands of Uncle Sam) might well make us safer than we are now.

Hulet
Feb 22nd, 2006, 08:59 PM
I agree *JR* with your last paragraph. The amount of scrutiny on the UAE company would be unprecedented which is why I am surprised they want to get involved in this affair. This is one of those things that frustrates me about Arab companies and tycoons. Instead of doing their best to better their own country, you see them often trying to invest in some murky business somewhere else in the world. Like buying football clubs and etc in Europe. Or, when it comes to the leaders, they don't often look at their national interest as I mentioned with Syria and other countries. You see them doing the bidding of Western powers instead of standing firm for their own citizens. It's all mysterious to me why that is the case.

griffin
Feb 22nd, 2006, 09:01 PM
On the other hand, as I indicated in my first post in this thread, albeit with an over-stretched analogy, I am really uncomfortable with this argument that, since one or two of the 9/11 bombers was from UAE, then the rest of the country must be.

And that is an argument that we should be uncomfortable with (although I think it oversimplifies and overstates some of the concerns raised about the UAE) - but like I said, no company or entitiy owned or controled by a foreign government should be given ownership of another countries ports. Whether or not we consider them friendly/safe.

Infiniti2001
Feb 22nd, 2006, 09:04 PM
This editorial appeared on NewsMax.com one of the biggest far-right
websites!!!! Even the rightwing nuts have turned on him! He will regret the day he ever heard the word "Dubai." :mad:



If Vice President Dick Cheney shot himself in the foot last week when he shot
poor old Harry Whittington down on the Armstrong Ranch, President Bush is in the
process of machine gunning both his legs off over this Dubai Ports World deal.

What a total disaster this is!

The President - just four and one half years after 9/11 - is now defending an
Arab government against both political parties and the overwhelming majority of
the American people.

This latest incident is further proof that George W. Bush inherited the same
political "tin ear" that his out-of-touch father had.

Neither Bush has a clue what the American people are thinking.

And since the beginning of his last term - won in 2004 only because the
Democrats are even more out of touch than the Republicans - G.W. Bush has
repeatedly shown that he is missing his audience completely:

* His 6-month campaign last year on Social Security Reform proved to be a
total waste of time. The more President Bush campaigned for it - the less
support it got. Why? Because it was not the biggest issue to most people.
Illegal immigration is a huge issue - and Team Bush has screwed it up for five
years.


* The choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court was another political
screw-up that alienated his own voters and took valuable time and energy away
from a positive agenda.


* Hurricane Katrina remains symbolic of the total incompetence of government -
from the White House all the way down to the state and local hacks in Louisiana.


* The disastrous Medicare Prescription Drug Program is seemingly driving many
seniors into mental institutions. It is an example of government screwing up a
pretty good situation.


* The Dick Cheney shooting incident just further illustrates W's inability to
take control of an issue and fix it before it overtakes him.


And, of course, Iraq continually eats away at his presidency. Is there no end to
this morass? It is clear that total incompetence and fraud dominates this
administration.

griffin
Feb 22nd, 2006, 09:07 PM
Besides *conveniently ignoring* that the (again, unionized, and "don't take no guff") longshoremen would love to bust their bosses on any "funny business" and be lauded as heroes, Griffin and Hulet both miss something else here. (OK, I forgot to mention it). ;)

Certain Executive Orders were enabled by Congress and signed by Nixon circa 1970. (Truman not having them being why his seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War didn't stand). As Gitmo shows, 9/11 only increased Presidential Power re. national security.

And the "Kerry Court" (the one made possible by dumbfuck's '04 excuse for a campaign) certainly ain't rolling that back. Meaning that (as in the Panama Canal treaty, BTW) this or another President can sieze ports, that canal, civilian 747's, etc. if s/he deems that national security warrants it.

For that to be reassuring, one has to have a level of trust in the administration and its judgment. Nothing this President has done in the name of national security makes that possible for me. (although I'd be no happier about this if Jimmy or Bill we still in charge)

K.U.C.W-R.V
Feb 22nd, 2006, 09:09 PM
I agree with SelesFan70 that the Dems are jumping on this issue as an opportunity to appear hawkish on national defence. Having said that, I have absolutely no idea what the Bush Administration is thinking. From whatever angle you look at the issue, it is utterly ridiculous.

"How to commit electoral suicide in 2006/8 in one easy step."

*JR*
Feb 22nd, 2006, 09:12 PM
The Dick Cheney shooting incident just further illustrates W's inability to take control of an issue and fix it before it overtakes him.

Actually, the idea was to off Mr. Whittington, and then blame him for outing Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA agent.
:devil:

Pureracket
Feb 22nd, 2006, 10:15 PM
I agree with SelesFan70 that the Dems are jumping on this issue as an opportunity to appear hawkish on national defence. Having said that, I have absolutely no idea what the Bush Administration is thinking. From whatever angle you look at the issue, it is utterly ridiculous.

"How to commit electoral suicide in 2006/8 in one easy step."LOL!!!!! :lol:You Repubs are seriously trying to find a reason to blame Democrats for this?!?!?!?:lol:

Pureracket
Feb 22nd, 2006, 10:16 PM
The Repubs don't need to worry, though. Debates like Healthcare, Social Security, Education, and Border Security will take a backseat to more serious issues like gay marriage in November. LOL!!!!!

Black Mamba.
Feb 22nd, 2006, 10:23 PM
I understand the outrage in all of this especially since 9/11 and I understand why the President did what he did because we do need allies in his "war on terror". My problem with all this is that whether we mean to or not it seems like we're running into the "all arabs are terrorists" belief and that's wrong.

Denise4925
Feb 22nd, 2006, 10:30 PM
Not only has Bush violated the Constitution and broken the law by invading our privacy, he's now committing treason. IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!!!

Denise4925
Feb 22nd, 2006, 10:38 PM
I understand the outrage in all of this especially since 9/11 and I understand why the President did what he did because we do need allies in his "war on terror". My problem with all this is that whether we mean to or not it seems like we're running into the "all arabs are terrorists" belief and that's wrong.

Not true. This particular Arab nation has had close ties to Al kaida (sp?).

*JR*
Feb 22nd, 2006, 11:58 PM
Not only has Bush violated the Constitution and broken the law by invading our privacy, he's now committing treason. IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!!!
John F(ucking) Kerry had one of the best opportunities in American history to remove an incumbent President from office. (It was done 9 times in elections, plus Nixon in midterm, not counting several who didn't even seek another term). Whatever one dislikes about dubya, he's just the same jerk he always was. Blame fuckface that he's still in office.

Infiniti2001
Feb 23rd, 2006, 03:01 AM
Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."

The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

The concessions _ described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies _ reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.

"We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.

Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Senate and House leaders urged the president to delay the takeover, which is set to be finalized in early March. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland." House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.

In Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from," Rice said Wednesday. She described the United Arab Emirates as "a good partner in the war on terrorism."

Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.

"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush learned about the deal "over the last several days," as congressional criticism escalated. McClellan said it did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a government review and was determined not to pose a threat.

McClellan said Bush afterward asked the head of every U.S. department involved in approving the sale whether there were security concerns. "Each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward," he said.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez told the AP the administration was being thoughtful and deliberate approving the sale.

"We are not reacting emotionally," Guiterrez said in an interview Wednesday. "That's what I believe our partners from around the world would like to see from us is that we be thoughtful. That we be deliberate. That we understand issues before we make a decision."

Justeenium
Feb 23rd, 2006, 04:04 AM
Not only has Bush violated the Constitution and broken the law by invading our privacy, he's now committing treason. IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!!!

a lawyer who doesn't even know what treason is. Sad to see that competence isn't a requirement for working for the state of Texas.

RVD
Feb 23rd, 2006, 04:15 AM
a lawyer who doesn't even know what treason is. Sad to see that competence isn't a requirement for working for the state of Texas.Why don't you explain what you think Denise meant?

:secret: This should be good.

SelesFan70
Feb 23rd, 2006, 04:17 AM
We know there are enemies in the Middle East, we just don't think invading is going to fix it :wavey:

What I find hilarious is Republicans finally realizing the Bush administration is whacked :)

:scared:

A4
Feb 23rd, 2006, 05:42 PM
I hope Mr. Bush sticks to his guns and vetos anything from a bunch of pandering politicians which bars the company from operating the port. And this is coming from a guy who thinks Bill Clinton was a much, much better and smarter president than Reagan/Bush will ever be.

Its kinda weird to find Democrats allied with elements of the right/far right and Bush as moderate.......

griffin
Feb 23rd, 2006, 06:03 PM
Its kinda weird to find Democrats allied with elements of the right/far right and Bush as moderate.......


Yeah, that is a weird conclusion to come to...perhaps you should rethink it ;)

Pureracket
Feb 23rd, 2006, 06:14 PM
Yeah, that is a weird conclusion to come to...perhaps you should rethink it ;)LOL!!!!!

*JR*
Feb 23rd, 2006, 07:13 PM
Yeah, that is a weird conclusion to come to...perhaps you should rethink it ;)
But on the domestic wiretapping contoversy, its exactly such a coalition between the Democrats and far right Republicans opposing the Administration. Like certain Suisse Stuff :bolt: "politics makes stange bedfellows".

Denise4925
Feb 23rd, 2006, 07:28 PM
a lawyer who doesn't even know what treason is. Sad to see that competence isn't a requirement for working for the state of Texas.
:lol:
Treason:
act of handing over;betrayed;the betrayal of trust; the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.

SelesFan70
Feb 23rd, 2006, 07:31 PM
I hope Mr. Bush sticks to his guns and vetos anything from a bunch of pandering politicians which bars the company from operating the port. And this is coming from a guy who thinks Bill Clinton was a much, much better and smarter president than Reagan/Bush will ever be.

Its kinda weird to find Democrats allied with elements of the right/far right and Bush as moderate.......

This is issue is clearly making strange bedfellows! Carter is with Bush? :speakles:

I'm with Sen. Schumer, Sen. Biden, ReeVeeDynasty, Pureracket? :speakles: :scared:

SelesFan70
Feb 23rd, 2006, 07:34 PM
But on the domestic wiretapping contoversy, its exactly such a coalition between the Democrats and far right Republicans opposing the Administration. Like certain Suisse Stuff :bolt: "politics makes stange bedfellows".

The Dems are wrong on wiretapping...and their position on the ports is actually oxymoronic from their recent actions. But I'm a whore and if the Dems can help block this port deal I'm with them...for the very short term!

Pureracket
Feb 23rd, 2006, 07:39 PM
:lol:
Treason:
act of handing over;betrayed;the betrayal of trust; the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.So you seriously didn't know that Justeenium didn't know what he was talking about?:lol: I can't believe you wasted your time, D.

Denise4925
Feb 23rd, 2006, 07:48 PM
So you seriously didn't know that Justeenium didn't know what he was talking about?:lol: I can't believe you wasted your time, D.
I'm always available to help out. ;)

*JR*
Feb 23rd, 2006, 08:24 PM
The Dems are wrong on wiretapping...and their position on the ports is actually oxymoronic from their recent actions. But I'm a whore and if the Dems can help block this port deal I'm with them...for the very short term!
So are the very conservative Republicans who (simply want warrants issued by the FISA court within 72 hours) wrong on the wiretaps, too?
:confused:

Pureracket
Feb 23rd, 2006, 08:28 PM
So are the very conservative Republicans who (simply want warrants issued by the FISA court within 72 hours) wrong on the wiretaps, too?
:confused:Umm. .. *JR*, I can't believe you just took the words outta my mouth like that. NICE!