Republicans Block New Security Scrutiny

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON Mar 15, 2006 (AP)— Republicans blocked a Democratic effort Wednesday to force House votes on expanding government scrutiny of foreign investments, the latest fallout from a Dubai-owned company's failed bid to run some U.S. port operations.

In a 224-192 procedural vote, the Republican-controlled House thwarted Democrats from offering two amendments to a $91 billion measure for wars and hurricane recovery. Democrats also planned to push for more port security money while criticizing Republicans on the issue.

"If the Republicans are now deciding to get on board, then we welcome them, because for so long they have been on a sinking ship, basically saying that our ports are secure," said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, lead Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee.
.....
By its procedural vote Wednesday, the House prevented Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., from offering an amendment that would require an intensive national security review for all transactions that could result in foreign control of any person engaged in interstate commerce. Currently, a multi-agency government panel decides whether applications for foreign investments deserve increased scrutiny, and few do.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1728345&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[Itchinjim]

1. Good, put the bastards on the record.

Then shove the record up their asses come November.

[wordpix2]

6. that's right, shove it with this: "Repubs are soft on National Security"

[Richard Steele]

20. They aren't 'soft on it'; REPUBS ARE OPPOSED TO NATIONAL SECURITY!

Every chance they get, they BLOCK simple, basic
common-sense ideas which would improve security.
If we already have programs in place,
you can BET YOUR ASS that they have cut the budgets.

Since 9/11, they have REMOVED SECURITY, in every way imaginable.

[Mithras61]

2. Say it with me now...

Republicans are SOFT on National Security!

I knew you could do that! :D

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. Gotta keep them doors open for the next MIHOP/LIHOP

.
.
.

How else are the PNACers gonna get martial law invoked down there?

[Barrett808]

4. Yup. It's a comin'. n/t

[sattahipdeep]

5. Electromagnetic pulse this time....

At another FDD/CPD forum in the Capitol
building last month, Center for Security Policy's
Gaffney warned that Iran's missile program was
designed to detonate a nuclear weapon "in space
high above the United States, unleashing an
immensely powerful electromagnetic pulse
EMP that could reduce the United States to a
pre-industrial society in the blink of an eye."

....
In his most recent Web posting just last week,
May quoted another Perle protégé, the American
Enterprise Institute's Michael Ledeen, as
identifying Iran as the terrorist puppet master
that "now exercises effective control over groups
ranging from Hezbollah, Ansar al-Islam,
al-Qaeda, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Jaish-e-Mahdi,
and Jaish-e-Huti (Yemen) to the Joint Shi'ite
Army of Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, and
part of Saudi Arabia, as well as Islamic
movements in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia."

"The Foundation is making a difference across
the world," Bush said Monday, "and I appreciate
the difference you're making."

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8703

[Mithras61]

8. I tell you, these people are smoking some STRONG shit!

Since when will an EMP reduce us to a pre-indutrial state?

Since when does Iran have nuclear weapons capable of sending an EMP to the whole USA?

Since when does Iran have ICBMs?

Since when do terrorists report to Iran? (After all, what would OBL think, huh?)


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[sattahipdeep]

15. You need to ask Adam Ereli (Taliban and al Qaeda)

Reuters - Tue Feb 21st 2006 at 7:21 pm ET
State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said the U.S. intelligence
community had conducted a risk assessment and decided there was
no objection on national security grounds.

INTERVIEW-Afghanistan wants Pakistan to assist Taliban fight
15 Mar 2006 14:42:08 GMT

Source: Reuters

Abdullah Abdullah, who is visiting Malaysia to attract investment
to help rebuild his war-shattered country's economy, said relations
between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the area of security had to move
forward in a more robust manner.

Pakistan, which officially ended its support for the Taliban after
the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, says it does all
it can to stop cross-border movement by militants.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KLR171451.htm

[Mithras61]

18. You lost me on that one...

The UN IAEA says Iran is at least a decade away from any nuclear enrichment activities. That means they CAN'T have a nuclear weapons program at this time (not even Russia & China are selling weapons grade uranium).

They also have some long range ballistic missiles, but nothing close to an ICBM, and certainly nothing close to one capable of delivering a payload like the one described.

Do you mean that Tehran IS trying to be in charge of all of the terrorist networks?

I don't understand what the article's relevance is...

[pushycat]

17. What all does that mean? How do you know this?

I don't doubt you, just want to better understand how my gov will do this to me. damnit all

[wordpix2]

7. MIHOP/LHOP? Pls. explain

[reprobate]

9. Let it happen on purpose. And Made it happen on purpose.

Relating to the opinion of some, including myself, who believe that the neocons either caused 9/11, or knew that it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it from happening.

I could be mistaken, but I think I recall polls that show the majority of Americans fall into either LIHOP or MIHOP. Which I believe reflects the lack of trust in Bush and his cohorts.

[wordpix2]

11. thanks

[katinmn]

10. Hmmm. Could they be covering up widespread investment in

potentially illegal or terroristic activity?

[wordpix2]

12. anything's possible with this criminal gang. My mind is blown every day

at the revelations

[katty]

13. GOP/Neo's/RWingnuts: Not real political parties, they're cults

that hide behind and use the political theatre & religion

[radfringe]

14. so who are the lobbyists that told them to

scuttle it? Follow the money time?

[librechik]

16. more proof Pukkkes are more interested in security than Dems

NOT

[Rex]

19. Congress-Repukes are soft on national security and just put in on record.

Morans. They've lost the military vote and are now on record for being AGAINST more security against foreign parties. Yet, notice how they just love controlling domestic security? Kinda makes you wonder why they hate US citizens but love foreign investors so much.

[wordpix2]

21. elephant in the room is Iraq at $4.5 Billion/mo heading for $2 Trillion

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html

[Zorra]

22. Republicans just so totally suck. Why would anyone be a

republican, unless they were a corrupt totalitarian fascist at heart?

[Vinca]

23. Consider it fodder for the coming election.

I hope the 'pukes continue to block Democratic efforts to straighten this country out. America is waking up - at long last - and they don't like what they see.

[Blaze Diem]

24. Yes and that 33% is a big fat joke on all of them.

I believe they need to hide the handing over of our ports to Haliburton.

Cheney's made the deal and about to sign the papers...can't have the Dems snooping around in Cheney's business deals.
Hide it, and stall until the deal is done.

Cheney's tirade on America, profiteering for himself at America's expense is why Dick appointed himself VP..
Dick's Shadow Government hard at work.
George the tool was the perfect diversion.

Feingold/Harkin 2008