[quote=“Bodo”] I rarely see any criticism of her as a policy-maker. I’d actually like to see some - I’m sure there are problems with her way of thinking too.
Bodo[/quote]
Why are you so sure? If it’s because sh’s human, well, I have to agree with that, but…
I think she’s an exemplary politician. Not Mother Theresa, but as politicians go, she’s better than most. That said, I wouldn’t vote for her. Because the backlash against her from da good ol’ boys with billions of dinero would be so fierce as to put the country at a standstill.
This, not Bush, is what I hate about American politics.
"The REAL Story Behind the Port Sale:
US Ports were Handed to Dubai Government with Bush’s Knowledge Three Months Ago
By Cheryl Seal
So now Bush claims he had no clue that the operation of six US ports was being sold to the government of Dubai, d.b.a Dubai Ports World (DPW). Yeah, right, and Tinkerbelle ain’t a fairy. The sale of US port operations by British company P&O to DPW was far from a sudden development. The company began having serious financial problems in 2002 and has been selling off assets and laying off workers for the past three years. It has been a major and ongoing story in the European news sources, including the BBC. Last fall, P&O even initated a highly publicized (in Europe, anyway!) bidding war over its ports! The deal between P&O and DPW was inked in November, 2005. One hopes that when such a major development occurs affecting US ports that SOMEONE in the US government is notifed."
ahem: someone in the U.S. Government is notified, but it doesn’t necessarily get reported to the Pres. Or if it does, it’s one of who knows how many briefs from different agencies he gets in a day. For specifics like this, the agencies (my guess would be USTR, Commerce Dept, and Homeland Security) would take charge of any investigating and probably only mentioned it to Bush if there was some particular problem.
Well he’s not much of a president if he doesnt know national interests are being solf off. It smacks of racism anyways.
The war on terror will only get the US more trouble. I expect more nasty kaboom booms in the USA. The USA really knows how to make enemies. Half it’s allies arent too fond of the USA as well.
How is Bush being racist? If anything it’s Congress that is – though even then I don’t really think its so much racism as protectionism. As for Bush not knowing, well, ok a staffer should have mentioned it just because it was such good fodder for the press, but lets face it, foreign companies have similar interests in most American ports so its hardly significant.
It smacks of racism. Let’s see what the English means… It being a thing not he meaning a person… I never said Bush was a racist.
The situation smacks of racism.
If Bush is porrly briefed which he seems to be then the government should look at why it’s so called assessments are so wrong. Starting with the claims that Iraq had WMD and posed a major security threat.
The US is lacking a major component for international relations… credibility.
Bush has wholeheartedely supported the sale, even to the point that he’s threatened to veto any legislation that attempts to block the sale. With regard to Bush, how does that “smack of racism.”
Regarding whether or not Bush was briefed – Since it is a fact that most of the companies that run U.S. ports are not U.S. based, and this was a private sale from one company to another, why does it follow that the President must have been aware of the intimate details when existing agencies are capable of handling the situation?
There are numerous threads about Iraq and WMD’s – if you have any problems with my posts on any of those threads feel free to address them in those threads.
If the “smacks of racism” comment was directed at Congress, just say so, I’m not sure I disagree with you on that count – though I would stipulate that protectionism also plays a part.
Ok now we are on the right track. All this debate in the news about protecting US interests whilst insulting your allies is due to the white house and congress.
Protectionism is not the solution when you’re supposed to trying to free up world markets
Well, on trade issues, under Bush relations have been strained by Iraq/War on Terror and by the Steel Bailout a couple years back. The Steel thing was completely aimed at domestic votes, which Bush didn’t really get, and damaged the U.S. reputation as the champion of free trade. Since then I think he’s done very well on trade issues, but obviously animosity over Iraq/War on Terror isn’t going away. As for Congress, they tend to float towards whatever interest they think will make them look good on TV, so I don’t put too much stock what Congress says, they’ll be saying the opposite next month.
The ports issue is shaping up to be hugely significant. Bush is in a political pickle for the first time. After fanning the flames of anti-Arab sentiment, he suddenly needs to scratch the backs of the oil Arabs he is in league with. This gives the Democrats a strong weapon and potential campaign issue that plays well with the terrorized American public.
Of course elected Republicans can see this and are considering their options. Turn on Bush or hold the fort for him? With the VP being called Lord Vader openly in the mainstream press, it’s looking like they might bolt.
I basically agree with the sentiments in this article: LINK
[quote]Now comes the fraudulent, bogus issue of the ports. Suddenly New York senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton are agreeing with Republicans Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert that a deal made by the Bush administration allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to manage six U.S. ports is a horrendous threat to
All this debate in the news about protecting US interests whilst insulting your allies is due to the white house and congress. 
