View Full Version : House Republicans defy Bush on ports deal
Full House to vote next week on issue; Senate also considering measure
Updated: 10:22 p.m. ET March 8, 2006
WASHINGTON - In a congressional election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations. Democrats clamored for a vote in the Senate, too.
By 62-2, the House Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports. The landslide vote was the strongest signal yet that more than three weeks of White House efforts to stunt congressional opposition to the deal have not been successful.
Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress. But there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall’s elections.
Full article & Source here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11730569/
Busyman
03-09-2006, 05:11 AM
As a further slap, I see Bush's veto being overridden.
Tempestv
03-09-2006, 07:32 AM
kinda distroys his postion that he didn't know about the deal huh?
kinda distroys his postion that he didn't know about the deal huh?
Kinda.
Never understood the intransigence after the fact, either.
Even if it was the best idea in the world, it was coincidentally the dumbest idea in the world.
vidcc
03-09-2006, 03:52 PM
Amazing what election years can do
Amazing what election years can do
As well as what they do not do.
So Dubai has withdrawn their proffer; it seems every Republican in the land had a hand in this except Bush.
Amazing. :rolleyes:
vidcc
03-09-2006, 09:07 PM
Amazing what election years can do
As well as what they do not do.
So Dubai has withdrawn their proffer; it seems every Republican in the land had a hand in this except Bush.
Amazing. :rolleyes: care to expand?
As well as what they do not do.
So Dubai has withdrawn their proffer; it seems every Republican in the land had a hand in this except Bush.
Amazing. :rolleyes: care to expand?
Not really; I haven't the money for a new wardrobe just now.
Busyman
03-09-2006, 09:24 PM
care to expand?
Not really; I haven't the money for a new wardrobe just now.
I am not surprised. :no2:
Anyone know the democrats take on this or was this strictly partisan?:mellow:
Not really; I haven't the money for a new wardrobe just now.
I am not surprised. :no2:
Anyone know the democrats take on this or was this strictly partisan?:mellow:
The dem leadership has actually said they are still deciding what their reaction should be; I'm sure you can look out any of several windows in your six-sided domicile (no wonder you are so conflicted, ideologically) with a lens and see every democrat finger in metro D.C. raised to test the political winds.
Biggles
03-09-2006, 09:33 PM
Is there a gulf developing between Bush and his party.
:lookaroun couldn't resist the pun...
sorry!
Busyman
03-09-2006, 09:35 PM
Is there a gulf developing between Bush and his party.
:lookaroun couldn't resist the pun...
sorry!
:lol:
Yeah as approval ratings go down for Bush, the party will want to distance itself from the bullshit that's been boiling over the years. I mean a new Republican has to get elected President, ffs.:rolleyes:
vidcc
03-09-2006, 10:14 PM
I am not surprised. :no2:
Anyone know the democrats take on this or was this strictly partisan?:mellow:
The dem leadership has actually said they are still deciding what their reaction should be; I'm sure you can look out any of several windows in your six-sided domicile (no wonder you are so conflicted, ideologically) with a lens and see every democrat finger in metro D.C. raised to test the political winds.
I'm sure you actually believe this.
The dem leadership has actually said they are still deciding what their reaction should be; I'm sure you can look out any of several windows in your six-sided domicile (no wonder you are so conflicted, ideologically) with a lens and see every democrat finger in metro D.C. raised to test the political winds.
I'm sure you actually believe this.
He's said several times he lives in a six-sided house; he could be lying, I suppose.
Do I literally think the dems are standing on the capitol steps, fingers moist and upraised?
Not literally, no.
Figuratively?
No doubt about it.
Each Republican is rushing to any available press to insist their individual efforts brought about the Dubai withdrawal.
The official dem statement as of about 1 pm EST was as I have described it; they literally said they were deciding what their official stance would be.
This was reported coincidentally with one by Frist's office that he applied pressure last night calling for the Dubai cohort to withdraw, which pressure bore fruit today.
Other Republicans were making similar noises, but the status as "breaking news" precluded in-depth coverage of the entire litany.
In light of the Republican rush, it strikes me as hilariously odd for the Dems to release that particular statement, even in some misbegotten nod to party loyalty.
Apparently they have no minds of their own...
vidcc
03-09-2006, 11:00 PM
Truly amazing viewpoint.
Truely amazing viewpoint
It is a commentary on the news as reported by Fox, MSNBC and CNN.
The news is the news; what do you find so amazing about my viewpoint?
vidcc
03-09-2006, 11:38 PM
Truely amazing viewpoint
It is a commentary on the news as reported by Fox, MSNBC and CNN.
The news is the news; what do you find so amazing about my viewpoint?I guess the "mission accomplished" lesson has been forgotten on the right
"This is obviously a promising development, but the devil's in the details," seems a reasonable reaction to me
btw. who blocked the vote in the senate? and who was it shouting loudest to get it put up for a vote?
Busyman
03-10-2006, 12:02 AM
I am not surprised. :no2:
Anyone know the democrats take on this or was this strictly partisan?:mellow:
The dem leadership has actually said they are still deciding what their reaction should be; I'm sure you can look out any of several windows in your six-sided domicile (no wonder you are so conflicted, ideologically) with a lens and see every democrat finger in metro D.C. raised to test the political winds.
Eh? I have a gun in 6 corners of the house, not a six-sided house.
Ideologically, I can't be pigeon-holed like you.
It is a commentary on the news as reported by Fox, MSNBC and CNN.
The news is the news; what do you find so amazing about my viewpoint?I guess the "mission accomplished" lesson has been forgotten on the right
"This is obviously a promising development, but the devil's in the details," seems a reasonable reaction to me
btw. who blocked the vote in the senate? and who was it shouting loudest to get it put up for a vote?
Your Schumer quote is not at all a statement of stance, nor would I expect it to be, at such an early juncture.
My point was that it seemed foolish to even bother with a statement to the effect of, "We are formulating our response" when such could normally assumed to have been the case.
It is as if they'd made a special effort to remind us that events should be expected to proceed as they always do in politics.
Let us say the it warranted nothing apart from a very profound...yawn, which I found humorous.
I guess I can't expect you to see it the same way, given your allegiances. :P
The Republicans are exhibiting no tendencies alien to the political genus.
Dogs lick themselves, too, but society and the media don't often note the fact.
As for Bush, he handled this with all the aplomb he demonstrated with Hurricane Katrina.
Now, I'll sit back and see how you manage to twist my extraordinarily non-partisan post into something....else. ;)
vidcc
03-10-2006, 12:43 AM
Well then, I am wondering what exactly your original point is
Well then, I am wondering what exactly your original point is
Talk to the guy who started this fuckin' thread, I don't know...
I was just blathering, like you do.
vidcc
03-10-2006, 01:01 AM
Well then, I am wondering what exactly your original point is
Talk to the guy who started this fuckin' thread, I don't know...
I was just blathering, like you do.
If you don't know what you were trying to say how is Skizo going to know :huh:
Busyman
03-10-2006, 01:07 AM
Talk to the guy who started this fuckin' thread, I don't know...
I was just blathering, like you do.
If you don't know what you were trying to say how is Skizo going to know :huh:
:glag:
Talk to the guy who started this fuckin' thread, I don't know...
I was just blathering, like you do.
If you don't know what you were trying to say how is Skizo going to know :huh:
I lied.
I do know what I was trying to say.
The fact you don't know doesn't mean Skizo shares your shortcoming.
It is probably best you don't try to decipher my intent, either; you see how tortured Busyman's logic becomes when he attempts this. :huh:
EDIT: My apologies for use of the word LOGIC; I did not mean to imply Busyman uses it.
Busyman
03-10-2006, 01:36 AM
If you don't know what you were trying to say how is Skizo going to know :huh:
I lied.
I do know what I was trying to say.
The fact you don't know doesn't mean Skizo shares your shortcoming.
It is probably best you don't try to decipher my intent, either; you see how tortured Busyman's logic becomes when he attempts this. :huh:
EDIT: My apologies for use of the word LOGIC; I did not mean to imply Busyman uses it.
Why 'cause through all your bullshit verbage, you still remain transparent and nonsensical?
I'll stick with my logic.
I'll stick with my logic.
Oh, by all means-I wouldn't dare to suggest otherwise.
Busyman
03-10-2006, 02:12 AM
Why 'cause through all your bullshit verbage, you still remain transparent and nonsensical?
I'll stick with my logic.
Oh, by all means-I wouldn't dare to suggest otherwise.
Excellent. Your suggestion wouldn't hold much weight anywayz.
Busyman
03-10-2006, 07:02 AM
I'm sure you actually believe this.
He's said several times he lives in a six-sided house; he could be lying, I suppose.
Do I literally think the dems are standing on the capitol steps, fingers moist and upraised?
Not literally, no.
Figuratively?
No doubt about it.
Each Republican is rushing to any available press to insist their individual efforts brought about the Dubai withdrawal.
The official dem statement as of about 1 pm EST was as I have described it; they literally said they were deciding what their official stance would be.
This was reported coincidentally with one by Frist's office that he applied pressure last night calling for the Dubai cohort to withdraw, which pressure bore fruit today.
Other Republicans were making similar noises, but the status as "breaking news" precluded in-depth coverage of the entire litany.
In light of the Republican rush, it strikes me as hilariously odd for the Dems to release that particular statement, even in some misbegotten nod to party loyalty.
Apparently they have no minds of their own...
The Repubs are making news 'cause this is approximately the second they went against the President. (the first was turning down his cleaning lady as a Supreme Court Justice)
The Dems were against it anyway.
Republicans are largely reflecting their constituents' views rather than backing Bush on the DP World deal, "using the issue effectively as a wedge to put distance between themselves and an unpopular president," Sabato said.
Bush's popularity is nearing the lowest levels of his presidency with his approval rating dropping in one poll to 34 percent.
But some Republicans dismiss Democrats' attempts to claim the security issue.
"We're not going to let the Democrats get to the right of us on national security," promises Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the House Homeland Security Committee chairman who is fighting the DP World deal.
Democrats in Congress almost daily blame their GOP counterparts for security holes in the U.S. maritime industry.
They trot out votes that show the Republican-controlled House and Senate turned back more than a dozen Democratic efforts to secure millions of dollars more for port security since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"When it comes to protecting the ports, Republicans really do have a pre-9/11 mind-set," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
Among the votes:
_In 2003, House Republicans, on a procedural vote, agreed to kill a Democratic amendment that would have added $250 million for port security grants to a war spending package.
_Two years later, nearly all House Republicans voted against an alternative Homeland Security authorization bill offered by Democrats that called for an additional $400 million for port security.
_Senate Republicans stood together in 2003 to set aside a Democratic amendment that would have provided $120 million more for port cargo screening equipment.
_One year later, all but six Senate Republicans voted to reject a Democratic attempt to add $150 million for port security in a Homeland Security appropriations bill.
That "record of failure" presents "an important opportunity for Democrats to argue that they are the ones who have the right approach to protecting the country," maintains Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster.
House Republicans were put on record again last week on port security when Democrats tried to force a debate and vote on legislation that would require congressional approval of DP World's takeover. The effort failed. Only two Republicans voted with Democrats.
Either way I don't how either side can take credit for it solely and it doesn't matter 'cause this is clearly a bipartisan effort and ultimately the outcome will be for the better.
vidcc
03-13-2006, 03:36 PM
did he say hats off to bush for not getting stubborn on the deal (http://mediamatters.org/static/video/bigstory-20060310-ports.mov):huh: ...........Foxnews..........fair and balanced :rolleyes:
vidcc
03-17-2006, 01:06 AM
Seems republicans don't want the ports secure, they blocked funding for Port security and disaster preparedness
http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/8348/portvoteedit8vl.jpg
The amendment proposed by Rep. Martin Sabo (he's a democrat) included
– $300 million to enable U.S. customs agents to inspect high-risk containers at all 140 overseas ports that ship directly to the United States. Current funding only allows U.S. customs agents to operate at 43 of these ports.
– $400 million to place radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. Currently, less than half of U.S. ports have radiation monitors.
– $300 million to provide backup emergency communications equipment for the Gulf Coast.
Have you parsed the entire bill so see what else is in it?
Don't jump to conclusions; you could end up with egg on your mug.
vidcc
03-17-2006, 08:53 PM
Have you parsed the entire bill so see what else is in it?
Don't jump to conclusions; you could end up with egg on your mug.
Firstly it was an ammendment to a bill not the bill.
sabo site (http://sabo.house.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={3E15B82E-D8FA-4D69-8312-569D3F9DEB20}&DE={3CE6A653-679D-4546-8FB3-90F6BD2DFD1B})
/2006/amend.pdf (http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/amend.pdf)
do you believe John Kerry voted against body armour for the troops ?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.