None. Bush gave him the job for helping out in campaign (sm)

• Brown resigns from FEMA. - Next step?
  • What were his credentials for the job anyway? nm - Democrat
    • None. Bush gave him the job for helping out in campaign (sm) - just another democrat
      • And exactly what credentials did the Thomason's have to run the travel office under Clinton? - Golly
        • And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?sm - Democrat
          • You ARE kidding, right? - -
            • I wasn't kidding. I don't remember a disaster like Katrina during the Clinton sm - Democrat
      • Exactly. You would think the job title would have given the Prez. a hint.sm - Democrat

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/delegates.htm (a conservative site, no less!)

President Bush has decided to stay out of the lion's share of decisions made by his administration.

Sources close to the administration said that over the last year, Mr. Bush has chosen to focus on two issues, leaving the rest to be decided by Cabinet members and senior aides. They said the issues are Iraq and the Republican congressional campaign in the 2006 elections.

Lots of important issues that deal with national security are never brought to the president because he doesn't want to deal with them, a source familiar with the White House said. In some cases, this has resulted in chaos.

The White House has acknowledged that Mr. Bush was not informed of the administration’s decision to approve a $6.85 billion takeover by the United Arab Emirates of a British firm that operates at least six major ports in the United States. The decision triggered a public firestorm and strong bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. This prompted the Dubai-owned company last week to bail on its bid to operate terminals in U.S. ports.

Vice President Dick Cheney also was not informed of the approval of the port takeover by the state-owned Dubai Ports World. The process was administered by the Treasury Department-aligned Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which sparked opposition from most of the Republican leadership in Congress.

My take on this is that the president relied on his CFIUS board, this Committee on Foreign Investment; that they did a superficial scrub on this, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter said on March 7.

They've been trained to be more of a business, or more of an arm of the administration which is designed to expedite or to shape acquisitions so that they can take place rather than to stop acquisitions, said Mr. Hunter, California Republican.

The sources said Mr. Bush's lack of involvement on most issues has led to numerous errors in judgment. They said the DP World episode was handled by the Treasury and Commerce departments. From there, the proposed sale was meant to have been relayed through the National Security Council for a White House decision.

It should have gone to Karl Rove and then gone up the chain, the source said. For some reason, it didn't. I don't think people understood how important this was in terms of both national security and politics.

Mr. Hunter and other members of the House Armed Services Committee were shocked over how little White House staffers knew of the security record of the UAE, cited in testimony to the 9/11 commission as having withheld cooperation regarding al Qaeda in 1999. Last week, Mr. Hunter and Rep. Jim Saxton, New Jersey Republican, brought evidence of how the UAE port of Dubai allowed shipments of nuclear components as well as heavy water and a precursor to nerve gas to countries such as Iran, Libya and Pakistan.

In 2003, Mr. Hunter said, Dubai allowed the shipment of 66 high-speed electrical switches designed to trigger and detonate nuclear weapons. He said Dubai rejected a U.S. request to stop the shipment.

The point is that if you are an outlaw regime, and you want to develop a nuclear weapons program, you have your components transshipped through Dubai, Mr. Hunter said. Dubai is a master at masking both the recipient of illegitimate weapons systems and the party that is sending, developing, selling those illegitimate weapons systems. I don't think those are the folks you want to have running your ports.

Neither Mr. Bush nor any of his aides ordered a change in CFIUS deliberations that would stress the security aspect of any foreign investments or operations in the United States. Mr. Saxton said the 9/11 attacks by al Qaeda had virtually no affect on the process.

The current system was designed, from what we can understand, to encourage foreign investment in our country, Mr. Saxton said. And 9/11 changed a lot of things, and CFIUS didn't change. And I guess it changed in some respects. We added a representative from the Department of Homeland Security, but it was still under the leadership of the Department of the Treasury. And so the mission of CFIUS remains pre-9/11, while the situation in post-9/11 is much different.

lower income families really is a neighborly idea.  We should help others.  However, we need to look at the big picture here.  When you continually give free handouts at the expense of others, not only do you make the people actually earning the money bitter, but you create a whole new problem with people expecting the government to bail them out and give them free handouts.  Yes, it may help some people but on the whole it will only create more government spending because more people will become dependent on the goverment taking care of them.  It is like a huge snowball rolling down a mountain and it just gets bigger and bigger and faster and faster until it buries us all.  We cannot afford more government programs.  We cannot afford to pay for health care for everyone. 

People are so blinded by the slogan of change that they will jump on any bandwagon.  Open your eyes!  The last thing we need right now is bigger government.  Bigger government will only cause more government spending and our country will fail horribly!

Yep, they'll be back when all the Lebanese are dead, because all us conservatives are evil like that.    

What about providing them the tools to deal with and live a productive life with their handicap or mental illness?  The problem with the liberals and their idea of helping humanity is that throwing money at the problem doesn't make it go away.  Do you know how many homeless people out there suffer with mental illness?  Do you know how many people with mentally ill family members weren't able to get their loved one the help they needed?  I'm talking tangible help, not just a monthly stipend that doesn't even cover the meds they require!

Do you realize that your husband, mother, father, sister brother, who ever can slice their wrists and take a handful of pills in an attempt to commit suicide, admit to their family they don't want to live, but when they show up to the ER and say "I didn't really want to kill myself" they just let them walk away with stitches in their wrists and after they've pumped their stomachs?  Did you know that even if they holler in the ER to the doctor, nurse, and social worker that they don't want to live and the most a family member can do to help their loved is an affadavit for a 96-hour hold in most states?  After 96 hours, they are deemed "okay" and released again to go on their merry way.

The liberal lawmakers have passed laws that say a mentally ill person has the right to be mentally ill.  They have a right to decide not to take their meds and they have a right to be homeless.  They are allowed to make decisions on their own which are detrimental to their well being, both physically and mentally!  A family member pleading to the court that this person is incompetent and cannot take themselves is virtually ignored.  I dare anyone to try to go to a court of law and get POA over a mentally ill loved one and see just how difficult it really is.  It's impossible thanks to the liberals.

Nope, let's spend a few million and buy new furniture for homeland security and a few million more to buy hybrids for congress. 

Can they not deduce that keeping corporate America from offshoring jobs will actually create more jobs, thereby lower the unemployment rate, and put more money in American's pocket for them to spend?  Cut all tax cuts given to companies for offshoring and give the tax cuts to companies to strive to keep jobs in America?

And here's another V8 moment -- how about we buy American?  Maybe increase tariffs on imported goods to discourage American companies from importing so much crapy and thereby necessitating said crap be sold at higher prices in an effort to discourage Americans from buying imports? 

The ONLY way to help the American economy is to employ Americans and buy American!  It's that simple!

*You reap what you sow.* That's what they've done.

Anyhoo, thought you said you were leaving.  Hmmmmmmmm.... they didn't have a real high regard for the truth, either. 

To anyone else reading this: This person isn't even trying to hide the fact that he/she is baiting us.  Let's not permit them to do to the Liberal board what they did to the Conservative board.

Just don't read this person's posts any more.  They said they were leaving.  They aren't doing that, and their only intention is to incite. Let's take the high road and not fall for their crap!

Do you think this will be a high voter turn-out year?  Voter registrations are waaaay up this year.  (Barring, of course, the fraudulent registrations which will hopefully have been resoved by election day.) 

It's certainly been the most hotly contested campaign season I can recall - and I've been voting since the late 70s.  There's so much bravado and blustering coming from both camps, and the media clearly chose their darling many moons ago, it seems like people will either be so sick of it, or apathetic about the outcome, that a lot of folks simply won't bother to show up.

I know there's been a massive push to register young voters.  Our college campus has been crawling with people trying to stir up support for a certain candidate.  My daughter and her friends are apporached every time they attend an event, from football games to local band open mic nights.  But do you think everyone will actually turn up on election day?

And this may be totally UN-PC, but I'm not so sure everybody SHOULD vote.  I mean, if you're too lazy to register, are you really going to be doing your due diligence and educating yourself about each candidate's policies and proposals? 

What do you all think about it?

'most of the people there was'.  Or was that intentional?  

We don't usually rag on hurried typo errors because we have no spell check on this forum.  But not bothering to look up a spelling or making a rookie grammatical error are both noteworthy. 

post.  Also said if you believe they are reliable on John Edwards, then you must believe they are reliable on SP.  hence, goose, gander.