| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/28 |
| 2006/2/22-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41959 Activity:moderate |
2/22 Can anyone tell me why Bush wants to outsource the ports to
a company from another country? What's the reason behind it?
What is the advantage for doing so?
\_ sounds more to me like that the ports are already outsourced by
foreign counteries. This was a case of one foreign company selling
out to a company HQ'd in a country that had a few folks unhappy
\- i dont think this is really a hands on personal decision.
it was a cmte decison by Committee on Foreign Investment in
the US. i suppose it is possible BUSH let them know what he
wanted, but i dunno if that has really been established.
this is controversial because the country is arab, not foreign.
foreign companies were already involved running other parts
of the ports/martine infrastructure.
\_ His threatened veto of any bar to it belies the "not hands on"
\- well that's after the fact. that can be construed as
backing the cmte rather than desiring a particular
outcome. perhaps a legitmate case of defending executive
privilage.
\_ Yes, it's after the fact. But that, combined with them
bypassing the required 45 day investigation period
suggests a concerted effort that would depend on an
executive branch "understanding". Yes, this is
conjecture, but it runs along their standard MO.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html
\_ UAE only supplied two 9/11 hijackers, so they only get ports.
Saudi Arabia sent 15 hijackers, so they get Abrams tanks, F-15s,
and quality time with Dubya. http://csua.org/u/f22 (whitehouse.gov)
\_ Their banks also provided money to the hijackers and stopped any
investigation to follow the money trail through UAE. There are a
lot of conservatives like me upset about this.
\_ Ok, Mr. Responsible Conservative Guy, so which GOP candidate
are you planning on backing for '08? Just curious.
\_ Anybody but Bush!
\_ Do you mean Jeb?
\_ I don't see any '08 candidates of any party worth looking
at twice. -Mr. RCG
\_ Reasonable, informed, people should always vote, and
shold always care. Even if you're a "lesser evil"
voter, shouldn't you care that they get someone who
can beat the other party? Of if you really hate them,
you should pick a Dem to support. Reasonable,
non-partisan people ignoring party primaries is how you
end up with assholes like George Bush being a major
party candidate. I will forever regret not registering
as a Republican in 2000 so that I could vote against
that bastard twice.
\_ I'm sure that would have made a difference. Anyway,
I think you're missing the above person's point
which is this is early 06 and the election isn't
until late '08. We don't even know who is running
so how could anyone have an intelligent opinion?
\_ If Colin Powell could be convinced to run, I would vote
for him. My 2d choice would be McCain. I voted for him
in the 2000 primary. If the GOP runs some neocon nutcase
and the Democrats run someone reasonable like Lieberman
or Clark, I'd probably vote Democrat for the first time
in my life. -gopvoter
\_ You don't want someone more moderate and not in the
pocket of the insurance industry like Senator Clinton?
\_ I'm pretty much center of the road, so I could
bring myself to vote for a moderate democrat,
esp. considering that a moderate democrat prob.
would not have expanded the fed gov as much as
BUSHCO has.
Re Sen. Clinton: I don't think I can vote for her
b/c I think her whole moderate stance is a just a
PR stunt and that she would go left if elected. I
am also just too closed minded to think that a woman
could lead troops into battle a la President Wash-
ington [except perhaps Princess Leia :-)]. I know
that no modern President has had to or could effect-
ively do this (except maybe Ike), but it is still a
factor in my voting. -gopvoter
\_ Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that they
both are leading identical countries, with
identical armies so that the only difference is
leadership, and imagine a war with Thatcher
leading one side and George W. Bush leading the
other. I'm not saying Clinton could be a good
commander in chief, but it would be hard to be
worse at that particular job than the lazy, lying
ex-cheerleader AWOL know-nothing who presently has
the job.
\_ As much as I love Maggie, the guys on the Brit
destroyer the Argentinians sunk might
disagree with you.
\_ I understand on a rational level that some
women can perform the duties of CiC better
that most of the men who have held that
position. That isn't the problem for me.
I still have this vision of the President
as a man who, if necessary, can walk on to
the battle field and defend this nation w/
his life. I just can't bring my self to see
this as the proper sort of thing for a
woman.
\_ Looks like you'd better start pushing
for a Jesse Ventura presidential bid.
\_ I prefer Ahnuld, but The Body would
be okay w/ me.
\_ "When two tribes go to war..."
\- and BUSH and CHENEY fit your vision of
a CiC who can walk on to the battle
field [sic] and defend this nation with
his life? wow, you have quite an
imagination. --motd vet for truth
\_ Bush2 does not fit my vision of a
proper president (I voted for McCain
in the 2000 primary and would have
liked the Democrats to have nominated
Clark in 2004). Furthermore, I said
that fitness as the CiC was one factor
in my voting. Between two male candi-
dates, this factor is not dispositive.
It only really affects my decision to
vote for a woman for the presidency.
I'd rather abstain than vote for a
woman candidate b/c I can't get over
the feeling that women are not fit
to be the CiC.
\_ Aren't these guys heavy Carlyle Group investors?
\_ I thought they aren't actually running the ports just leasing some
terminals ...
\- hola fyi ucb dept political science prof steve weber will
be talking about this on the radio at 9pm on thr.
\_ Polls don't matter, I read it on the motd. |
| 5/28 |
|
| www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html Search Bush Would Veto Any Bill Halting Dubai Port Deal Pool photo by Genaro Molina "This deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review," Senator Bill Frist said in Long Beach, Calif. Dubai Wins Bidding Battle for P& O (February 11, 2006) Alex Wong/Getty Images "After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," President Bush said at the White House. Bill Frist, and the House speaker, J Dennis Hastert, publicly criticized the deal and said a thorough review was necessary to ensure that terrorists could not exploit the arrangement to slip weapons into American ports. Mr Bush suggested that the objections to the deal might be based on bias against a company from the Middle East, one he said was an ally in fighting terrorism. "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Mr Bush said, discussing a government review of the deal that began in October and ended on Jan. The president added, "This is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that's an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through." George E Pataki of New York, in calling for the government to stop the deal from closing next week as scheduled. "We have not received the necessary assurances regarding security concerns," Mr Bloomberg wrote in a letter to the president on Tuesday evening. Charles E Schumer, in calling for a 45-day investigation of the deal under a federal law that governs the review of foreign investments. Mr Frist gave the White House only an hour's notice before breaking ranks and saying that "the decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold." He said that if a delay did not occur, he would "plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review." The response from the White House set up a confrontation between Mr Bush, who has said his primary goal is protecting the American people, and the leadership of his party in Congress, which is approaching midterm elections. Mr Bush rarely makes veto threats, and he has not vetoed a single bill in his more than five years in office. He issued his remarks after calling reporters into his conference room aboard Air Force One while flying back to Washington from Colorado, and then repeated them for television cameras after stepping out of his helicopter on the South Lawn of the White House. The White House appeared to have considered the deal routine, especially because so many foreign firms from Singapore, Denmark and Japan run major port terminals in the United States and have for years. But Senator Schumer, in an interview, said: "I don't think China or Britain or many of the others have the nexus with terrorism that Dubai has. What kind of controls do they have to prevent infiltration?" Mr Bush's aides rejected that line of thought, saying the company in question, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the government of Dubai, would have no control over security issues at the six terminal operations it is seeking to buy, at New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. The company would not own the ports but would operate some of the terminals in these cities. They pointed out that a similar purchase involving the container-handling division of the CSX Corporation, which was bought by Dubai Ports in December 2004, went through with no objections. In that case, none of the terminals Dubai Ports assumed control of were in the United States. But the central argument of the deal's proponents is that the United Arab Emirates have aided the United States in pursuing terror groups. John W Warner, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, which has set a briefing on the subject for Thursday. "We have to move carefully in considering the implications of what we do." Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani nuclear engineer who ran the world's largest nuclear proliferation ring from warehouses near the port, met Iranian officials there, and shipped centrifuge equipment, which can be used to enrich uranium, from there to Libya. |
| csua.org/u/f22 -> www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/images/20050425-8_hw9v0295jasjpg-1-515h.html Joint Statement by President Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah President George W Bush welcomes Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to his ranch Monday, April 25, 2005, in Crawford, Texas. The President told the media on hand he looked forward to "talking with him about a variety of subjects." White House photo by David Bohrer President George W Bush welcomes Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to his ranch Monday, April 25, 2005, in Crawford, Texas. The President told the media on hand he looked forward to "talking with him about a variety of subjects." President George W Bush welcomes Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to his ranch Monday, April 25, 2005, in Crawford, Texas. The President told the media on hand he looked forward to "talking with him about a variety of subjects." |