Conservative Mag.: Bush "Doesn't Want To Deal" With National Security Issues...

Wow. Thanks, mc mark. Did anyone check this out?

Bush delegates most issues, focuses only on Iraq, '06 campaign



"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."

The sources reported a series of tense meetings between House and Senate leaders and the White House over the last 10 days before the deal was scuttled. In one meeting, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, warned that Congress would override any threatened veto by Mr. Bush of legislation to block the DP World deal.

In a meeting on Wednesday, March 8, Mr. Bush and five GOP leaders argued over how to resolve the issue. Hours later, the House Appropriations Committee, in an amendment to funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, voted 62-2 to prevent DP World from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports.

"We are going to send a very clear signal that we want to have American interests secured by leaders in America," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis said

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/delegates.htm



Good god almighty... this man is our President? And some of you defend him??



Keep D&D Civil.

 

What astonishes, as you pointed out, is that this is indeed from a conservative internet mag, with close ties to that bastion of liberalism, the Washington Times. I read the article, and the disconnect that Bush/Cheney have with running the government is apparently far worse than I had imagined. (and I can imagine a lot!) Yet this will either be ignored by his ardent supporters here, or we'll get more nonsensical "sound bites," of no substance, attempting to make fun of the story.

 

I was told by someone in Bush's staff while he was governer that he was totally hands off. The guy would be in the office 4 hours at most and spent part of the time playing solitaire. The person still supported him because that person thought that he brought in smart people and let them do their job.

 

the One Minute Governor
to
The One Minute President

Rocket River

 

Here come the Connies to his defense...

 

...and what's wrong with this, a great management book is called the one minute manager. Please read this book to expand the mindset. In leadership, delegation is crucial and necessary.

 

ReRead my commentary
DID I say it was wrong . .. Did I say it was right?
If I did please point it out
Or
Did you simply make an assumption

Rocket River
I have read the One Minute Manager

 

You didn't...I was highlighting your commentary on how I didn't feel it was wrong. I actually didn't direct the meaning on specifically saying you are wrong or right, but my response was to derive meaning from another one of your thought provoking posts (which I honestly think you do a good job at)...

Small book, but a good read, no?

 

There is nothing wrong with delegation. Like when Bush delegated our energy policy to the oil industry. That was brilliant. I mean, come on, who knows more about energy than oil companies. Surely they have our best interests in mind.

 

Rox, that management style is fine for a weak governor, which is what a Texas governor is. It is more a "Bully pulpit," than anything else, aside from appointments to boards, commissions, and the like. It doesn't fly as President of the United States. Perhaps before the stock market crash of 1929, but no longer.

Reagan wasn't nearly this disengaged, and he comes the closest to what you're talking about. Obviously, I'm a Democrat, and never voted for the guy, but George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan, and it's our loss. It takes a lot for me to say that.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

very much so
you should check out the ONE MINUTE MILLIONAIRE

Rocket River

 

You could certainly make the case that some successful leaders have just hired good people an acted in an oversight capacity, but one has to really question some of Bush's people. Rove is no doubt a smart guy but does anyone really believe he has the interest of all Americans at heart?