Good News For People Who Like Bad News

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/bus...index.html'

Bush blames mix-up on lab's funding shortfall

Employees rehired before president's visit to tout energy plans

 

Tuesday, February 21, 2006; Posted: 1:19 p.m. EST (18:19 GMT)

 

GOLDEN, Colorado (CNN) -- President Bush told workers at a renewable energy lab Tuesday that the government had sent "mixed signals" over the future of its federal funding.

 

On the eve of Bush's visit, the Department of Energy said it had transferred $5 million to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which had funding cut and employees laid off this month due to budget shortfalls.

 

"I recognize there have been some interesting, let me say, mixed signals when it comes to funding," the president said.

 

Bush blamed a budget mix-up for the shortfall at the Golden facility, saying that sometimes when funds are appropriated, "the money may not end up where it was supposed to have gone."

 

The president, who was ending a two-day trip to Colorado, Michigan and Wisconsin to tout his energy initiatives, told the audience he backed their research into solar, wind and other alternative technologies.

 

"My message to those who work here is: We want you to know how important your work is," Bush said. "We appreciate what you're doing and we expect you to keep doing it, and we want to help you keep doing it."

 

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman transferred money over the weekend to restore jobs at the Colorado lab, according to a department news release.

 

"The programs at NREL are critically important to realizing the president's vision to diversify and strengthen our nation's energy mix," Bodman said in the statement. "The action we are taking today will allow the dedicated employees at NREL to continue their work that will bring us great innovation in renewable energy technologies."

 

According to The Associated Press, 32 workers, including eight researchers, were laid off two weeks ago at the lab.

 

The restoration of funding left lab employees and renewable energy proponents puzzled about the motivation behind the decision.

 

"I'm still questioning why the budget cuts even happened or why the layoffs had to happen in the first place -- like how it can happen two or three weeks later they restore the money to the budget," said Tina Larney, an employee being rehired who works with state and local governments on energy initiatives.

 

"It makes me question ... the seriousness of the commitment [of] the administration and the government in Washington to renewable energies and moving the U.S. forward in our energy policy."

 

The Department of Energy statement said the $5 million was transferred from other accounts and could be replaced with money from projects that "have failed to make progress."

 

On Monday, Bush touted hybrid cars, nuclear energy, ethanol and solar power during visits to energy research facilities in Michigan and Wisconsin. (Full story)

 

Bush pushes for replacing foreign oil

"Achieving energy independence will require more than rhetoric," said Dave Bowden, president of the Colorado Renewable Energy Society, a nonprofit membership organization that promotes solar energy and other renewables.

 

Bush said Monday night that lawmakers need to work on solving the country's addiction to oil.

 

"Of all the issues, becoming less dependent on foreign sources of energy is an issue that we ought to be able to unite and show the American people we can work together to help advance the technologies that'll change the world in which we live," Bush said at United Solar Ovonic, which makes solar panels, in Auburn Hills, Michigan, outside Detroit.

 

Earlier in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Bush also called for increased research into better batteries for hybrid and electric cars to increase dramatically the distance they can travel without using gas.

 

In his State of the Union address last month, Bush said the United States must not rely on oil from unstable regions, including the Middle East.

 

"The best way to break this addiction is through technology," he said, adding that technological advances will help achieve a "great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

 

"By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past," said Bush, a former oil man whose father and top officials in his administration also previously held jobs in the oil industry.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/por...rity/index.html

Lawmakers voice concerns about takeover by UAE firm

 

Tuesday, February 21, 2006; Posted: 12:17 p.m. EST (17:17 GMT)

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush is facing political pressure to block a deal that would give a United Arab Emirates-based company management of six major U.S. seaports.

 

Two Republican governors -- George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland --- have indicated they may try to cancel port lease arrangements, according to The Associated Press.

 

The deal -- which would affect the ports of New York and New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana -- has triggered security concerns among lawmakers and the public.

 

The Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security said the deal should not go through without a complete investigation.

 

"I would urge the president to freeze the contract, hold this contract, until a full and thorough and complete investigation can be conducted," said Rep. Peter King of New York.

 

The Bush administration contends the UAE is a key ally in the war on terror.

 

Others point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE. Also, most of the hijackers received money channeled through sources in the UAE, according to the Justice Department and the 9/11 commission. (Watch what role the UAE plays in the war on terror -- 1:57)

 

This month, shareholders of the British-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) approved the company's acquisition by Thunder FZE, a subsidiary of Dubai-based Dubai Ports World.

 

P&O directs commercial operations at the six U.S. ports. The takeover by Dubai Ports World means that it will be in charge of those operations.

 

Deal called 'by the book'

Administration officials on Monday sought to downplay the deal, saying it was done properly and that it would not jeopardize port security.

 

Bush was unaware of the deal until he heard reports of the congressional uproar, presidential adviser Dan Bartlett said.

 

"The process was done by the book," Bartlett said. "If you start deciding these issues in a guilt-by-association method, you will have a situation which has deep and harmful ramifications to the economic interests of this country."

 

Former President Carter, a frequent critic of the administration, said he doesn't think the deal poses "any particular threat" to security. "I've been to Dubai, and I've seen the remarkable port facilities they have there, perhaps the best in the world," Carter told CNN on Monday.

 

"My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state, the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage the ports."

 

A Dubai Ports World spokesman said that the firm has received all the necessary regulatory approvals and that the security systems in place at the ports would only get better under the new management.

 

"We intend to maintain or enhance current security arrangements, and this is business as usual for the P&O terminals," the spokesman said.

 

Industry official alleges 'racism'

A port security expert said that fears the agreement would reduce U.S. security are based on "bigotry" against Arabs and that "shameless" politicians are creating an issue they think will resonate with the public.

 

"This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard ... is factually false," said Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council, which represents 70 percent of the world's ocean shipping.

 

Dubai Ports World must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port Facility Security codes enacted in 2004, Petersen said. The U.S. Coast Guard enforces both sets of security measures.

 

Ridge cites 'legitimate' concerns

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff defended the deal in appearances on talk shows Sunday. He said federal law required a review of the sale by a committee that includes officials from the Homeland Security, Treasury and Commerce departments, along with the FBI and Pentagon.

 

"We look at what the issue of the threat is," Chertoff said. "If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn't a compromise to national security."

 

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, pounced on Chertoff, already under fire for his agency's response to Hurricane Katrina.

 

"You can't just simply tell us, 'Trust us,' " Menendez said. "We trusted the government response to Hurricane Katrina -- and the people of the Gulf were largely left on their own."

 

Menendez has proposed a law prohibiting the sale of operations at U.S. ports to companies owned by international governments, noting 95 percent of cargo reaching American ports is not inspected.

 

Chertoff's predecessor, Tom Ridge, said that he believes U.S. officials would not jeopardize national security.

 

Nevertheless, Ridge said, "I think the anxiety and the concern [over the deal] that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate.

 

"The bottom line is I think we need a little bit more transparency here."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/17/eav...ping/index.html

Senate plans no probe of NSA spy program

 

Friday, February 17, 2006; Posted: 11:04 a.m. EST (16:04 GMT)

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For now, the Senate Intelligence Committee won't investigate the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program, its chairman said.

 

"An investigation at this point basically would be detrimental to this highly classified program and our efforts to reach some accommodation with the administration," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas.

 

Roberts said he was arranging a deal with the White House to modify the 1978 law governing electronic surveillance and to provide members of Congress with more extensive briefings on the closely guarded National Security Agency program.

 

Many Democrats and some Republicans have disagreed with President Bush's authorization of the program to spy on international communications to the United States without a court warrant, as required by the 1978 law.

 

Bush and other administration officials contend his constitutional powers as commander in chief and a congressional resolution passed after the September 11, 2001, attacks provide the legal authority for the surveillance without a warrant.

 

Ranking committee Democrat Sen. Jay Rockefeller said the decision was influenced by the Bush administration.

 

"It is ... more than apparent to me that the White House has applied heavy pressure in recent days and recent weeks to prevent the committee from doing its job." (Full story)

 

He said the committee is slipping into irrelevance because it's not providing oversight of the program.

 

Roberts said the White House isn't pressuring him to prevent an investigation.

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee already has begun probing the program and a federal judge ordered the Bush administration on Thursday to release documents about the program or spell out what it is withholding. (Full story)

 

On his way into a meeting of the Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Roberts said he was working out a deal with the White House to modify the 1978 law governing electronic surveillance and provide members of Congress with more extensive briefings on the closely guarded National Security Agency program.

 

Rockefeller said no committee vote was taken on his request to investigate the program, and any signs of compromise from the White House "are entirely unknown or unheard of by me."

 

"The very independence of this committee is called into question as we are continually prevented from having a full accounting of prewar intelligence on Iraq; the CIA's detention, interrogation and rendition program; and now, the NSA's warrantless surveillance and eavesdropping program," said Rockefeller. "If we are prevented from fully understanding and evaluating the NSA program, our committee will continue its slide toward irrelevance."

[Vyce 0]

The Senate has no business sticking it's nose in the spy program, so good.

 

The UAE story though is just fucking clownshoes. Whoever thought that was a good idea needs to be bludgeoned.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Even though their manner of pursuing the program was technically illegal? I don't know how people can excuse that entire mess when the warrants can be acquired retroactively for up to two weeks after the surveillance.

[Art Sandusky 0]

And word is coming out now that the President will veto any legislative attempt to block the takeover of those seaports. His reason of "it looks bad to do business with some countries and not others" is honorable (although this is a hell of a time to decide that we want to be friendly with Muslim nations), but I'm not a huge fan of any foreign country having control of something like that.

[Vyce 0]

Then Congress better show some stones and overturn the veto. It'll be pretty fucking ridiculous if Bush's first veto is for this bullshit.

[EricMM 0]

I almost lost it when Bush blamed the cuts to renewable energy "mixed signals"

 

I'm excited he's there, I'm glad he's finding out people can stick panels on their roof and sell energy to the state. Because I think, in his bubble, a lot of science was not shown to him.

[Guest]

That UAE thing is fucking shit. I don't like the fact that companies from another country can control our ports, especially one from that region. Wasting a veto over that is so stupid.

[Art Sandusky 0]

It's not just wasting a veto, it'd be his very first veto since he's been President.

[Guest]

Exactly my point. Use it on something that matters, not this garbage.

[Special K 0]

So Bush went on and on about finding alternative energy sources, and our addiction to gasoline in the SotU speech, but he cut federal funding? That's fantastic! There's one thing that really needs some federal funding, since private companies aren't goign to do it until we're in an energy crisis.

 

The port story is scary.

 

Lastly, the wire taps are pretty much the least of our worries, though I would like to know when they are instituted, that would sort of defeat their point. Until I hear innocent people are being arrested, I'll save my judgment.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I don't have a problem with the law as it is now, and understand its usefulness quite well. I just want to know why the hell they couldn't go back and get warrants if they were able to do so.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Holy hell, this is turning into a big shitstorm. See, we're all going to end up coming together to make sure these kinds of people never take charge of the executive branch again.

[Guest]

Everyone makes mistakes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a pretty big fucking mistake.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

That UAE thing is fucking shit. I don't like the fact that companies from another country can control our ports, especially one from that region. Wasting a veto over that is so stupid.

 

What I heard on the news was that the UAE has so much money invested in other areas in the US, that if the Port deal is rejected, they could pull out their other investments, which would almost certainly send the US economy tanking. Which is why someone said that there might be terrorists who would actually want the US to reject the deal..

 

OMG..DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO HELP TERRORISTS..

 

Consequently, the economics of the deal mean theres no way in hell that it gets rejected.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Whoever said that is full of it. The biggest fraction of our trade held by any Arab nation is 1.something percent with Saudi Arabia, and that's all oil. The United Arab Emirates is even less than that.

[Art Sandusky 0]

So now the Dubai deal is going to be subject to the 45 day review that it was supposed to have gone through in the first place. Oh, and the Coast Guard expressed concerns about gaps in intelligence and potential threats before the review was quickly approved. Hardly "no cause for national security concerns."