The World Newser is World News' daily blog. Here, you'll find our staff's thoughts on the day's news and the way we build our broadcast. Plus, we'll share reports from our team of correspondents in the field, as well as producers behind-the-scenes.
RECENT POSTS
- Clem's Chronicles: Toyota Recall/Afghan Speech/State Dinner Crashers
- Charlie Gibson...On this Thanksgiving
- Quotes of the Day: 'It is my intention to finish the job'
- Start Your Shopping Engines
- The Hajj and Women's Dress
- Clem's Chronicles: Afghanistan/WH State Dinner/Holiday Travel
- Photos: White House State Dinners Through the Years
- Are We Becoming A Nation of Know-Nothings?
- Quotes of the Day: 'President Obama has the information he wants... to make his decision'
- Clem's Chronicles: Jobs/Afghanistan/Health Care Reform/Deficit
- Child Safety: Crib Recall and Other Recently Recalled Kids Products
- You Buying Less This Holiday?
WORLD NEWSER CATEGORIES
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
George Stephanopoulos: Is Bush bluffing or wielding weapon?
February 22, 2006 5:37 PM
The threat was a shocker (which may explain why White House aides were trying to soften it a touch last night by saying it only came "in response to a question.") Hard to imagine that the President would choose an issue where 80% of the country and 80% of his party is against him for his first veto. His hope had to be that putting out the threat would put out the fire -- and earn him points in the Muslim world. Then at his morning gaggle this morning, Scott McClellan undercut the WH position by saying that the President didn't even know about this issue until a few days ago. Seemed like the first step toward suing for peace. But that zag apparently has not been followed by any substantive talks with the Congress on a possible compromise, and the only prominent allies the President has picked up in the last 24 hours are John McCain and John Warner. On the other hand, he's irritated Speaker Hastert, who still hasn't gotten a call from the WH. So if there is a way out, Congress isn't in on it yet. This makes me think that the President might be hoping that P&O takes the matter into its own hands and either asks for a delay or pulls out of the deal on its own. No sign of that yet, but may be the best hope for the White House.
Here are my big questions on the port story: Is the President's veto threat a big bluff -- or another weapon he's determined to wield in the war on terror? Is there a face-saving way out?
February 22, 2006 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (3)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Why hasn't anyone asked why no American Company was awarded the Port contracts?
Posted by: alison Mcgee | Feb 22, 2006 10:29:53 PM
This morning I read in a letter to the editor of the Seattle Times that on the DP World website one can find the information that President Bush has nominated Dave Sanborn, a senior DP World executive to serve as Maritime Administrator a post described as a "key transportation appopintment reporting directly to Norman Mineta, the secretary of Transportation and Cabinet member." Is this true? What do we need to know about the connection between this appointment and the takeover of American ports by this company? Will we ever be able to get any answers?
Posted by: DaleahLawson | Feb 23, 2006 11:05:34 AM
Where are the strong Democrat voices? Not the pusilanimous apologists, but the voices that ring with the clarity of Roosevelt, the blunt honesty of Truman, or the soaring vision of Kennedy?
Absent these kinds of leaders, we are left without alternatives to the incompetence and dishonesty of the Republicans.
Bush has wracked up 30 impeachable offenses that involve the loss of human life, or the misuse of power. Where are the calls for independent investigators?
It seems there have been no strong Democrats in Congress to balance the tyranny of the right.
Manuel
Oceanside, Ca.
Posted by: Manuel L. Carrasco | Feb 26, 2006 9:39:48 PM
Post a comment
