Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (4557)	2/25/2006 5:49:20 AM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Bush is adamant about this deal because all his rich cronies will make big money off this deal. He does not want to let them down. I'll tell you what really stinks about this deal, the chairman of the comittee that approved the deal, Mr. Snow our Transport Secretary, is going to make millions on this deal, as will his close associates if/when this deal goes through. Talk about a Conflict of Interest. As far as Bush having anything to lose. The only thing he can lose is a bunch of rich friends if he does not stand for their interests, because he has no political office that he can lose if the deal fails, he cannot run for President again. Why would you trust a man like Bush? The guy who was caught on video tape telling us just 18 months ago not to worry about domestic spying because the government had to seek warrants. Now we know he was lying through his lips about that matter. What else is he lying about? If we are serious about port security, we would never let another country run our ports. OUR ports should be controlled by OUR country, or else we are opening up ourselves to security lapses and issues that aren't necessary.

To: KLP who wrote (4557)	2/25/2006 10:08:32 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

"The deal is probably just fine, although as I said before, I'd feel better if Bush and Rumsfeld had known about it before the deal was ready to go." We all have some trepidation about it. Why was it not a big deal when a different foreign company owned the rights? Who owns the rights in the rest of our ports?

To: KLP who wrote (4557)	2/26/2006 10:58:20 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The deal is probably just fine, although as I said before, I'd feel better if Bush and Rumsfeld had known about it before the deal was ready to go. Bush only has about 2 years left as Prexy under any condotions. As long as the lid stays on that long (and it will probably take a year to get this going) he's likely clear. I do find it strange that a man who pushed the Patriot Act and Patroit II so strongly has no problem with this. Reallt strange that. As to the "A foreign country had this contract before" argument, I fail to see that the Brits have anything to gain by sinking the US. Far from it. I really don't trust the mid and upper midlevel bureaucrats much anymore, after all the CIA leakers. And the leaking didn't just start. Remember the Pentagon Papers? Regardless of your take on the Vietnam War and the contents of those documents, they were classified military documents leaked by those bureaucrats. <i.And on top of that, we just arrested 3 more Americans in Ohio this week, for recruiting for, and participating in, AQ training camps.... Geeze. It is really horrible to think about Americans training others to kill possibly thousands of other Americans. Yeah. But they are. Ad they first warning of a really serious problem might come from a port operator. I want that guy on our side, not part of the conspiracy.