Ghost of BiB Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 So, they are not concerned with what is best for the country, but are only concerned with what is best for their re-election? Sounds like things I have been saying for a while as to why these people have no business being in Congress. Again, it is a foreign business transaction. From what I understand, the only reason why this was brought up is because of a lawsuit in Florida. There is not much Bush can do about that. Yeah, way to stay on top of things, Congresscritters. 622388[/snapback] I'm surprised that more people on the Hill don't read WSJ. Been in there for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I'm surprised that more people on the Hill don't read WSJ. Been in there for months. 622398[/snapback] Perhaps because WSJ doesn't quite respect the Hill and its ability to put the interests of the country ahead of the interests of 1st Tuesday in November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 I'm surprised that more people on the Hill don't read WSJ. Been in there for months. 622398[/snapback] Oh they do, get clippings of that stuff each day, but they are not proactive...there is that term again...but only reactive. Shoot Bib, you should know that by now. Also, they wait for things to get ripe...meaning getting attention, then they look for an advantage with their constituents, the more emotional the better, especially if their stance is generally supported and allows a partisan advantage that hurts the other side. So the only question for me was this going to play back home and if it did, this deal...dead or not is not the point, can folks use it to their political advantage, the answer is clearly yes. Opponents of this deal can only hope that it drags out longer and gets more controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 No, but they can cross the Great Lakes. I'd look much harder at the southern border. Not that the drug cartels are in cahoots with the terrorists or anything, spinning up in the triangle area, and have been successfully smuggling sh-- into the US longer than many here have been alive. Point of my blathering is that instead of hyperbole, address what what the actual threats are. AQ is loving this sh--. Let's force the US into spending billions on what amounts to feel good measures that have the sidebar of increasing operational costs and slowing the efficiency of port operations. And, we can drive up the anti-American sentiment to boot. Also, passengers may get looked at at airports, but is every single piece and item of air cargo fully inspected? I've shipped stuff FEDEX that ....well, never mind, there. 622370[/snapback] Iran's probably loving it as well. Increased tension between UAE and the US only adds to the physical security of their nuclear program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 Iran's probably loving it as well. Increased tension between UAE and the US only adds to the physical security of their nuclear program. 622433[/snapback] No kidding, that is the best statement as a result of all this crap that I have read on this post. Won't play with consituents much back home, but it is a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Isn't this fun? It's always fascinating to actually look over the dynamics of things. I sure wish the media would consider it. I'm still hearing "Bush sold our ports to the Arabs, and we're all going to die" out of people who watch "Headline" News as a sole source. If the Republicans wanted to, they could play this one into Democrat stupidity for future elections, but it's gotten too selfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 Isn't this fun? It's always fascinating to actually look over the dynamics of things. I sure wish the media would consider it. I'm still hearing "Bush sold our ports to the Arabs, and we're all going to die" out of people who watch "Headline" News as a sole source. If the Republicans wanted to, they could play this one into Democrat stupidity for future elections, but it's gotten too selfish. 622444[/snapback] "Could have", too late, they are covering their asses and on the Bush bash bandwaqon whole hog. If Bush and worked to piece meal this deal out, it might have worked. I think the enormouness of it probably killed it...6 majors and how many small ones..21? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 "Could have", too late, they are covering their asses and on the Bush bash bandwaqon whole hog. If Bush and worked to piece meal this deal out, it might have worked. I think the enormouness of it probably killed it...6 majors and how many small ones..21? 622454[/snapback] I just wish someone could do something, anything without politics getting involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 I just wish someone could do something, anything without politics getting involved. 622456[/snapback] Understood, but then we would have office politics, where is the fun in that...too mundane. Something akin to Kremlin watching! Like Communism, nice theory...will never work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Understood, but then we would have office politics, where is the fun in that...too mundane. Something akin to Kremlin watching! Like Communism, nice theory...will never work. 622458[/snapback] And then to top it off, people get "secretive" in an attempt to try to avoid it, which always backfires. Was sh-- this bad on the Hill when you were up there? Or has it gotten this much worse recently? I'm really bugged by all the critters that have been publicly demanding more access to certain things as a result. I see things that would set off a feeding frenzy because of how easily they can be misrepresented, and shudder as to what the parties and high profile politicians would do with them. Being a Congress Critter should not result in unfettered access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 The original 30 day review was "too quick" and "not enough time to properly review the situation." But a mere week and a half and these Congresscritters have had enough time to fully understand the issue and can make an informed decision. Ummm...yeah...OK... 622343[/snapback] It takes less than a week and a half to realize you're doing business with ARABS! Once they came to terms with that, I'm sure there wasn't much else they needed to know. (Sorry to borrow CTM's running joke, but that's basically what this entire thing boils down to.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 It takes less than a week and a half to realize you're doing business with ARABS! Once they came to terms with that, I'm sure there wasn't much else they needed to know. (Sorry to borrow CTM's running joke, but that's basically what this entire thing boils down to.) 622471[/snapback] Not any more. It's about political manuevering for the upcoming elections. Too many people jumped in with both feet before anything was known, and now have to dance with the girl they brung. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 And then to top it off, people get "secretive" in an attempt to try to avoid it, which always backfires. Was sh-- this bad on the Hill when you were up there? Or has it gotten this much worse recently? I'm really bugged by all the critters that have been publicly demanding more access to certain things as a result. I see things that would set off a feeding frenzy because of how easily they can be misrepresented, and shudder as to what the parties and high profile politicians would do with them. Being a Congress Critter should not result in unfettered access. 622464[/snapback] It has gotten worse, a lot more access and briefings were given under Bush I and Clinton, and they were more responsive with working deals. Bush has been so secretive that he is pissing off his own folks and cooptable Dems. Unfettered is hardly there and because of that it leaves congresscritters to assuming and getting infor from other sources, and they will always find ways to get info. Fully accurate or not, info will be generated with enough plausiblity to put the WH on the defensive. Some of this is a result of one party is in control, they tend to fight too much among themselves and info being power, is less likely to be shared. Dems had similar problems before '94 and started eating their own. What I can't figure is why doesn't the White House be a little more responsive and work on controlling the message better. Is it just laziness, a lack of understanding of congressional needs, stupid partisanship...which I know has gotten a lot worse...or because of a lame duck session politics. Probably a combo, which makes it a lot worse. P.S. CNN just announced Sen. Warner read a letter on the Senate floor from the CFO of Dubai ports, turning operations of these ports over to U.S. authorities...not sure what that means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 P.S. CNN just announced Sen. Warner read a letter on the Senate floor from the CFO of Dubai ports, turning operations of these ports over to U.S. authorities...not sure what that means? Off the top of my head it sounds like "Piss Off". Al Jazeera will get some local mileage out of this fiasco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 It appears to me that members of both parties aren't studying this thing at all. People here and elsewhere talk about the DPW running the ports. From what iIhave heard and read. they are only in maybe one or two terminal buildings in the ports mentioned. They are not going to be running the whole port. These ports are big. I have seen the Port of Oakland (the 5th biggest in the US) and it is run by the US with companies either leasing or buying berths there, There are at least several companies that offload ships with those big cranes that look like the Imperial Walkers from Star Wars. This is all moot, since DPW said they are going to divest the US part of the company. A possible US company to step in and take their place? Halliburton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Halliburton. 622506[/snapback] To the Congresscritters pushing for this: Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it. I can just see the heads of the Dems explode if they push for a U.S. company to take over and Haliburton gets the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 It appears to me that members of both parties aren't studying this thing at all. People here and elsewhere talk about the DPW running the ports. From what iIhave heard and read. they are only in maybe one or two terminal buildings in the ports mentioned. They are not going to be running the whole port. These ports are big. I have seen the Port of Oakland (the 5th biggest in the US) and it is run by the US with companies either leasing or buying berths there, There are at least several companies that offload ships with those big cranes that look like the Imperial Walkers from Star Wars.This is all moot, since DPW said they are going to divest the US part of the company. A possible US company to step in and take their place? Halliburton. 622506[/snapback] Schumer was trying to attach his bill to the lobbying bill, anyone know anything about this lobbying bill and what it does? They are having a cloture vote on it now, to preclude a vote on the ports deal, makes some sense from a political maneuvering stand point. Still what the heck is this lobbying bill and does it do anything good or bad? Just downloaded a CRS report on the issue, but don't know anything about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 A possible US company to step in and take their place? Halliburton. 622506[/snapback] Peoples' heads would literally explode at that news. All of this could have been avoided had someone at some point said, "This looks like a good deal, but we might have to sell it to the american people first." I mean, what did they expect in an election year, when all across america people attack sikhs and hindus because they can't tell the difference between them and muslims? It doesn't make leading by trial balloon right, but they should've known that a significant number of americans hear "arab" and start reaching for their BB guns. You can't set people up like that for 6 years, then expect them to become rational about a mid-east company just becasue you said so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 To the Congresscritters pushing for this: Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it. I can just see the heads of the Dems explode if they push for a U.S. company to take over and Haliburton gets the contract. 622518[/snapback] Funny, oh heck that would just draw out this issue more and give us one more good thing to get our voters to the polls. I hope they do! Still pretty funny having a battle cry...Halliburton, kinda like Pittsnoggled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 To the Congresscritters pushing for this: Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it. I can just see the heads of the Dems explode if they push for a U.S. company to take over and Haliburton gets the contract. 622518[/snapback] Wow...great minds, Ken. (although I would have left out the Dems, ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts