Jacki’s whereIstand Blog

The questions have been flying since the announcement of the DPW takeover of P&O.  Critics of the deal claim it poses security risks to the U.S.  Well, the U.S. ports are already national security disasters so I am on the fence as to whether the Dubai-owned company taking over operations of our major ports will put us at any additional risk.  But I am not the person touting Code Orange, Duct Tape your windows public service announcements every time my ratings fall below, er, 50 percent.  You would expect President Bush to cast a more discerning eye on this deal.  But he isn’t.  Why?

TheBlueState.com posted a transcript from a CNN report this week.  Check it out here:

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is a major investor in The Carlyle Group, the private equity investment firm where President Bush’s father once served as senior adviser and is a who’s who of former high-level government officials. Just last year, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8 billion Carlyle fund.

Another family connection, the president’s brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his educational software company from the UAE investors. A call to his company was not returned.

Then there is the cabinet connection. Treasury Secretary John Snow was chairman of railroad company CSX/. After he left the company for the White House, CSX sold its international port operations to Dubai Ports World for more than a billion dollars.

In Connecticut today, Snow told reporters he had no knowledge of that CSX sale. "I learned of this transaction probably the same way members of the Senate did, by reading about it in the newspapers."

Another administration connection, President Bush chose a Dubai Ports World executive to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. David Sanborn, the former director of Dubai Ports’ European and Latin American operations, he was tapped just last month to lead the agency that oversees U.S. port operations.

The only possible explanation for Bush’s unfettered support of the deal other than someone close to the Bush Administration benefited substantially, either directly or indirectly, from this deal, is that Bush is trying to defuse the fact that once again he had no clue what was happening in this country.  I do not buy the latter simply because someone in the administration would have raised an eyebrow when the deal was approved by the White House last month. 

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

As anticipated, South Dakota lawmakers voted to ban nearly all abortions in the state.  On Friday, the House passed the bill 50 to 18, and the Senate approved it 23 to 12 earlier in the week. If signed, it will become law July 1.  Republican Governor Mike Rounds is expected to sign the bill. 

The new law, if passed, subjects doctors to up to five years in prison for performing abortions, except in cases where a woman’s life is in danger if the pregnancy is brought to term.  The bill contains no exceptions for rape or incest.  

Planned Parenthood is the sole abortion clinic in South Dakota and reports performing 800 abortions annually.  The clinic expects to sue the State if the legislation passes.

Some critics of the measure argue it cannot withold judicial scrutiny because it fails to carve out an exception for rape or incest. 

Proponents believe the timing is right for this legislation and hope to challenge Roe v. Wade now that Roberts and Alito sit on the Supreme Court, citing a potential retirement by Stevens as the key to a change in the law.

whereIstand Tags

• Will Roe v. Wade be overturned?

In response to sharp criticism from Republican and Democratic lawmakers, DPW offered to delay its takeover of U.S. ports, which was set for March 2.  Karl Rove announced that President Bush would accept the delay in order to quell Congressional leaders’ concerns over potential national security risks posed by the deal.  Rove also cited British regulatory steps as a reason for the delay, even though DPW publicly stated the remaining aspects of the acquisition would go forward as planned. 

The administration approved the deal last month - without a national security review.  White House officials claimed the president was unaware of the DPW takeover of P&O until last weekend - after the deal had been approved.

Outside Washington, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced that it would sue to block the takeover of its ports by DPW.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

The acquisition gives control over operations at six major U.S. ports to an UAE-based company.  Those ports affected by the takeover include ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Baltimore, Maryland, Miami, Florida, and New Orleans, Louisiana.  Critics of the takeover claim national security may be at risk.  President Bush insists that the UAE is an ally of the U.S.  Others point out that the Dubai-based company will be held to U.S. regulations just as P&O had been.  Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council told CNN:

Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port Facility Security codes enacted in 2004. Both sets of security measures are enforced in the United States by the U.S. Coast Guard.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

From the Times today,

If the [South Dakota] bill passes a narrowly divided Senate in a vote expected on Wednesday, and is signed by Gov. Michael Rounds, a Republican who opposes abortion, advocates of abortion rights have pledged to challenge it in court immediately — and that is precisely what the bill’s supporters have in mind.

Anti-choice activists envision new hope to overturn Roe v. Wade with Roberts and Alito on the bench.  Many believe that Stevens, age 85, may retire soon leaving a third appointee for the Bush Administration.  If Bush appointed a third justice Roe would be a distant memory. 

I’m convinced that the timing is right for this," said State Representative Roger Hunt, a Republican who has sponsored the bill.

The strong possibility of a third appointee sometime soon makes this all very real and very viable," Mr. Hunt added, a reference to conjecture that Justice John Paul Stevens, 85, might soon retire. I think it will all culminate at the right time.

• Will Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Donovan says here:

I don’t like commenting on flippant stories of no national import - particularly when they’re blown up as if they were extremely serious … .

This story raises serious concerns about Cheney’s credibility and judgement.  It isn’t the first time the veep’s credibility and judgement have been called into question either. The media should not let this one go.  There are many unanswered questions - like was the veep intoxicated at the time of the shooting and if he was, did he intentionally cover it up?  What do other White House officials know about the incident and what, if anything, have they covered up?

At most, the veep may be guilty of reckless endangerment - assuming he was intoxicated.  If he had caused a car accident instead of shooting a man, would this story still be considered frivolous?

In any event, more fuel to the fire … check out this screenshot from MSNBC, before it was scrubbed.  It was the first report from Armstrong in which she acknowledged there may have been "a beer or two" at the picnic lunch before the shooting. Armstrong’s comment about the beer was later removed from MSNBC.com. It’s back now.  If anyone has a screenshot of the story WITHOUT Armstrong’s beer quote, please send it along. 

Armstrong’s initial account on MSNBC.com is in line with Cheney’s story.  He claims he had one beer at lunch.  Of course, Armstrong has changed her story since assuring the public that none of the hunters consumed any alcohol until Cheney fixed himself a drink after the shooting.  The question is why did MSNBC.com remove Armstrong’s quote from the site?  And, why did MSNBC.com restore the quote once readers caught on? 

whereIstand Tags

• Donovan
• [open thread]

In an interview with CNN, Armstrong said that she never saw Cheney or Whittington "drink at all on the day of the shooting until after the accident occurred, when the vice president fixed himself a cocktail back at the house." 

Interesting, so who was at lunch with Cheney when he had ‘one beer‘? 

In Cheney’s own words, he and Armstrong were together all afternoon: 

The five of us who were in that party were together all afternoon. Nobody was drinking, nobody was under the influence …

So tell us Ms. Armstrong, how is it that you missed the beer the veep consumed at lunch? 

We all have heard the old adage, right?  The one about drivers fleeing the scene of an accident involving alcohol only to consume more alcohol after the accident to avoid criminal prosecution for driving under the influence.  Well Cheney’s story reeks of it! 

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

In his interview with Brit Hume, Cheney admitted to having "one beer" at lunch two hours before his hunting trip.  This may have escaped you because the clip from Cheney’s interview where he acknowledged having a beer at lunch never made it on the broadcast.  Fox News anchor, Carl Cameron announced that Cheney told Hume about the beer, but Fox never aired Cheney making the admission himself.  Surprise, Surprise. 

Here is the bigger issue:  How many beers did Cheney really have?  I don’t buy his account.  Is anyone tracking this down?  We know the Sherriff’s department is not.  They have closed their "investigation."

Are there hunters out there that can tell us whether it’s normal practice to drink before you hunt? 

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]