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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (730839)	3/10/2006 6:51:30 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Sheesh...Bush't own party won't believe him. Let the poor guy alone. He doesn't need this vote slapped in his face. _________________ House to vote on ports despite company promise By Steve Holland and Susan Cornwell 24 minutes ago WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives will forge ahead with a vote on blocking an Arab-owned company from managing U.S. ports, to ensure the firm sheds its U.S. holdings as promised, a leadership spokesman said on Friday. ADVERTISEMENT The Republican-run House's refusal to back away from the showdown vote was another blow to President George W. Bush, who suffered a stinging defeat Thursday when Dubai Ports World said it intended to back out of the deal his administration had approved. Reverberations from the political earthquake continued on Friday. The United Arab Emirates suspended talks on a free trade pact with the United States, although a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office said delays are common. Bush said he was concerned the opposition sent a worrying message to Middle East allies. "In order to win the war on terror, we have got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East," Bush told newspaper editors. State-owned Dubai Ports World surrendered to unrelenting criticism from both Republicans and Democrats in giving up the management of some terminals at six major U.S. ports. The UAE company said it would transfer the ports to a U.S. entity to allay concerns the deal posed a threat to American national security. Details of the transfer were not outlined. The White House had hoped the announcement would resolve the unprecedented crisis between Bush and a Congress run by his own party in open revolt. But Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said the House vote on a provision to bar the deal would go ahead Wednesday or Thursday anyway. "It's a smart move to keep it (the legislation) in there, in case the Dubai thing doesn't work out," he told Reuters. NATIONAL SECURITY The outlook for a Senate vote was less clear. Senate Republican leaders have been trying to avoid one in the near future. Deal critic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a New York Democrat, wants more information from the White House. "If things are as they appear, this is a great victory for national security. But make no mistake, we are going to scrutinize this deal with a fine-tooth comb to make sure the separation between American port operators and Dubai Ports World is complete and security is tight as a drum," he said. Dubai Ports Chairman Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, asked if the firm would sell the U.S. port management rights, told Reuters: "All this is being worked out by our parties in the States." But David Hamod, president of the National U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce, said it would be hard to find a U.S. company to step in. "The advantage that the overseas company has is economies of scale. They're doing this on a global level and so it will be very difficult to find a U.S. company in this business large enough to take over the operations," Hamod said. He also said his group was hearing calls for retribution, including keeping Americans out of Arab markets. "But it's a tiny minority of people who are arguing that," he said. Bush, who had vowed to veto efforts to block the deal, praised the UAE as a committed ally in the war on terrorism. "I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," Bush said. White House economic adviser Al Hubbard, in a CNBC interview, described Bush as "very distressed about this whole port situation." Treasury Secretary John Snow said his department's lawyers were in contact with DP World about its intentions. He also said the political furor was an isolated case, as he tried to limit damage to the U.S. free-trade image. In a post-mortem on the defeat, a senior White House official said there should have been better notification to ensure Congress knew about the deal before it blew into a "prairie fire." He said members of the government board who approved it had been told to be aware of the political sensitivities of their future decisions. (Pompsander edit....DUH!) The official said there were no regrets about Bush's veto threat, saying it was a principled position that Bush had been committed to see through. "At it's end, it still was his position, that he felt strongly about it, and the logical extension of the legislative process was that you'd be willing to veto a bill. We understand that made some people upset," he said. Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia, said congressional Republicans are running away from Bush this election year. A new poll Friday registered another low of 37 percent in Bush's approval rating.

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (730839)	3/10/2006 6:51:54 PM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

To:Neocon who wrote (180347) From: CYBERKEN Thursday, Sep 13, 2001 11:22 AM View Replies (3) \| Respond to of 577553 Military action is not what I was talking about. I was talking about war. There is a difference. Wars last for years. The end result is initially in doubt. The people are asked to make "sacrifices". Desert Storm was a "military action". Vietnam was a "war". World Wars I and II were "wars". Wars bring reduced consumer resources, conscription, casualty counts, and (unfortunately, but inevitably) disappointments. When real wars end, everybody still alive drops to their knees and prays thanks for that alone. They remember the entire affair not for the sweeping victories (that has to wait), but for the merciful fact that IT'S OVER. We'll go out and whack a few people somewhere, and hope we got some of the right ones. Maybe do it several times this time. But we won't go to war. America is no longer a warrior nation. We are a giant, maturing pyramid of Social Security. I strongly suggest you get used to that, so as to better understand events... Message 16344518