Skip to comments.
LIVE THREAD: Senate Hearing: Briefing on Ports Deal (11:00 a.m. EST)
C-SPAN ^
Posted on 02/23/2006 6:58:42 AM PST by Howlin
The Senate Armed Services Cmte. conducts an open briefing into the management of six American ports by Dubai Ports World. Sen. John Warner (R-VA) called the briefing to review national security issues raised by the deal, which transfers control from a British firm to one owned by the United Arab Emirates.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Louisiana; US: Maryland; US: New Jersey; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; dubai; enemiescloser; globaleconomy; po; ports; sanborn; snow; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 821-829 next last
To: zarf
21
posted on
02/23/2006 7:06:03 AM PST
by
Howlin
("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
To: mnehrling
IIRC, if they go against this deal and vote it down, Bush will veto it, then congress will vote to override his veto. Don't 2/3 of both houses have to vote it down?
22
posted on
02/23/2006 7:06:35 AM PST
by
processing please hold
(Be careful of charity and kindness, lest you do more harm with open hands than with a clinched fist)
To: Howlin
Hello,
Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, duty calls and I will be out for a few hours. See you all soon!
Glad to be here (even when I'm not!), MOgirl
23
posted on
02/23/2006 7:06:52 AM PST
by
MOgirl
(Hillary. She's a totalitarian freak. And you know what I'm talkin' about.)
To: Howlin
heheheh and the Strategery continues.
The hearing will be held. The Reps in opposition will announce how they have seen the light and will support the deal. The Dems will continue to bloviate and look like obstructionist clowns.
And in the end Dubya will cock his head, give his trademark little smirk and say "now, what was all the fuss about" :-)
24
posted on
02/23/2006 7:06:57 AM PST
by
commish
(Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
To: pbrown
Yes, both houses.
It's not going to happen.
25
posted on
02/23/2006 7:07:26 AM PST
by
Howlin
("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
To: sinkspur
I think we are going to hear lots of calls for patience, and delay of the deal. Senators will be trying hard to not appear racist and xenophobic, while at the same time doing all they can to blame Bush for the controversy because he didn't ask for their early blessing.
26
posted on
02/23/2006 7:08:32 AM PST
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: zarf
I heard this was a 'done deal' in September. Curious that it is just now getting attention.
27
posted on
02/23/2006 7:08:48 AM PST
by
processing please hold
(Be careful of charity and kindness, lest you do more harm with open hands than with a clinched fist)
To: commish
The Democrat talking point for the day: "What is the rush?"
28
posted on
02/23/2006 7:09:32 AM PST
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: commish; TomGuy
The Reps in opposition will announce how they have seen the light and will support the deal.Yep; now where is TomGuy with his list of FOR and AGAINST?
It should be interesting to watch the names SHIFT.
29
posted on
02/23/2006 7:10:02 AM PST
by
Howlin
("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
To: pbrown
But, does congress have the authority to override the deal in the first place? Technically, I don't know if Bush even needs to veto it if it is bad law- it may be a symbolic gesture to slap their hands. This may be more of a Supreme Court issue to validate the legality of the original process and/or any changes congress may pass.
30
posted on
02/23/2006 7:10:22 AM PST
by
mnehring
(Perry 06- It's better than a hippie in a cowboy hat or a commie with blue hair.)
To: pbrown
IIRC, if they go against this deal and vote it down, Bush will veto it, then congress will vote to override his veto. Don't 2/3 of both houses have to vote it down? The deal is done, Congress cannot vote it down. They will have to initiate a new bill and pass a new law/regulation that will negate the deal.
If that happens it just grows the government more, breaks down the separation of powers more, and adds even more red tape beaurocracy and regulation to the mix.
NOW does everyone understand why the DEMS are so in favor of doing this.
31
posted on
02/23/2006 7:10:29 AM PST
by
commish
(Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
To: Howlin
I can't see the majority in both houses agreeing that water is wet.
32
posted on
02/23/2006 7:10:47 AM PST
by
processing please hold
(Be careful of charity and kindness, lest you do more harm with open hands than with a clinched fist)
To: mnehrling
But, does congress have the authority to override the deal in the first place? No, they don't. Much worse is that they know they don't.
33
posted on
02/23/2006 7:11:16 AM PST
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: Howlin
Just a chance for some bloviating face time. Watch others join DiFi in
suggesting that the ports be federalized.
34
posted on
02/23/2006 7:11:17 AM PST
by
LisaFab
To: Howlin
Thanks for the "ping". This should be interesting...
To: Baynative
I might add that the UAE was a member of the coalition(s) of nations for Gulf War I and II.
36
posted on
02/23/2006 7:11:36 AM PST
by
debg
To: pbrown
With this they should include the Saudis since the Saudis had 15 people participate in 9/11. Then maybe they should discuss opening ANWR.
In the event the Saudis, Iranians, Nigerians and Venezuelans close the oil spigots it will do more to harm national security than this deal.
To: mnehrling
But, does congress have the authority to override the deal in the first place? Technically, I don't know if Bush even needs to veto it if it is bad law- it may be a symbolic gesture to slap their hands. This may be more of a Supreme Court issue to validate the legality of the original process and/or any changes congress may pass. DING DING DING!!! You win the cookie!!! THis whole thing is about breaking down the Separation of powers and giving Congress more power and regulation control.
And the Dems, MSM etc have played on the xenophobes and worryworts to the hilt on this issue.
38
posted on
02/23/2006 7:13:08 AM PST
by
commish
(Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
To: mnehrling
It is basically the government getting involved in a business transaction. What is to say that if you own a business and decide to sell it, the government won't get involved and tell you who you can and can't sell your business to.
To: Howlin; All
Thanks for starting..Note that C-span calls this an "open Briefing"..NOT a hearing per se..Freeper Cboldt called Warner's office to try an get a schedule..list of winesses,e c..nothing is available, nor listed on the committee website..
This sounds more like a televised BS session..will they have kegs?..amazing (NOT!!) thatall tese senators would rush bakc to DC when the Senate is in recess..
40
posted on
02/23/2006 7:14:04 AM PST
by
ken5050
(Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to propagate her gene pool. Any volunteers?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 821-829 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson