posted on March 9, 2006 04:15:43 AM new
on Ports Deal
Why is it that politicians only listen to their contituents during an election year?
WASHINGTON - In a congressional election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations. Democrats clamored for a vote in the Senate, too.
By 62-2, the House Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports. The landslide vote was the strongest signal yet that more than three weeks of White House efforts to stunt congressional opposition to the deal have not been successful.
posted on March 9, 2006 06:58:29 AM new
::“This is a national security issue,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis, the chairman of the House panel, adding that the legislation would “keep America’s ports in American hands.”::
Idiot! This is the kind of comment that makes me want to scream. This is political pandering at it's best. How can you "keep" something in american hands that is not in american hands to begin with? The majority of US ports are not in US hands. So is congress now oging to nationalize our ports or are they going to find a US company that they are going to force to lease them that do not have the experience of companies like P&O/DW?
But then when did logic ever factor in to our governmental actions.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on March 9, 2006 07:39:53 AM new
Actually Press Bush has been presented with an easy out of the Dubai deal. He has played the perfect game of chess on this one.
Raising the stakes, the panel attached the ports language to a must-pass $91 billion measure financing hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee was to approve the entire bill late Wednesday and the full House could consider that measure as early as next week.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on March 9, 2006 08:37:59 AM new
But Bear - what happens to those ports? The sale is going thru so the reality is that you have a company that has the legal right lease to those ports that is not allowed to use them. So do they sit vacant? Is DP World stripped of the leases?
Personally, if I am DP World - I now sue the US Government. They purchased a company based on its the value of it's existing assets and now the US government has drastically devalued the assets based soley on the religious base of the nation the company is from. You can't use this "America should control American ports" excuse when the company that was running them that you just bought was a Britsh company.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on March 9, 2006 09:38:45 AM new
Fenix, stop and think about it. I dont think Pres Bush will veto the bill because of the attached funding riders for the soldiers.
I also think he knew the riders would be attached thus giving him the perfect "out" of the Dubai deal.
The Brits have already OK'd the sale of P & O to Dubai, so who is left to manage the ports? The Chinese, the Koreans, the Japanese? I dont know. Or will some US company step in?
Does any foreign company have an inherent RIGHT to work in the US? Again I don't think so. Nothing I have seen on either political side have proposed an alternative.
Personally I still dont see a problem with Dubai.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on March 9, 2006 09:39:09 AM new
Now, Dubai is threatening to "hit back". Excuse me? Iran is threatening us. Are we sitting back and cowering? So, are we suppose to cower at Dubai's threats? I say, pull everything out of there. Let's see what happens when they need us to defend them. I was only mildly annoyed before. Now, I'm good and angry.
Dubai is threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests if Washington blocks its $6.8 billion takeover of operations at several U.S. ports.
As the House Appropriations Committee yesterday marked up legislation to kill Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of Britain’s Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O), the emirate let it be known that it is preparing to hit back hard if necessary.
A source close to the deal said members of Dubai’s royal family are furious at the hostility both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have shown toward the deal.
“They’re saying, ‘All we’ve done for you guys, all our purchases, we’ll stop it, we’ll just yank it,’” the source said.
Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the source added.
posted on March 9, 2006 10:08:41 AM new
::Now, Dubai is threatening to "hit back". Excuse me? Iran is threatening us. Are we sitting back and cowering? So, are we suppose to cower at Dubai's threats?::
Since their threats are economic, not military... yeah Cheryl. We might want to worry.
::I say, pull everything out of there. Let's see what happens when they need us to defend them.::
Um... who exactly is it that you think they need defending from? UAE is kind of the arab version of Switzerland. We don't have military based there for their protection, we have it there because we need to be in the area and they are a friendly nation that has been extremely cooperative ... but by all means ... lets poke a stick in their eye.
::I was only mildly annoyed before. Now, I'm good and angry.::
Why? Because after being bad mouthed by both conservatives and liberals in this country for no reason other than their geographical location and state religion they have are telling the US that they can't have their cake and eat it too? If you were openly insutlted by every clerk and employee of your local grocery store, would you continue spendding your money there?
Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the source added.
And this is what you were equating with the threats of Iran? Yeah... OK... sure....
What did you expect them to do Cheryl? We;'ve been insulting them for weeks, claim to hate them and have been a hares breath away from calling them terrorist scum. Why exactly is it that you think they would want to have anything to do with us?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on March 9, 2006 10:19:01 AM new
::Fenix, stop and think about it. I dont think Pres Bush will veto the bill because of the attached funding riders for the soldiers.
I also think he knew the riders would be attached thus giving him the perfect "out" of the Dubai deal.::
I think he actually might. Didn't the house or senate just kill an important bill because some smartass put a rider in that they did not feel should be passed? I would like to believe, for the benefit of the officie of the presidency, that the president will do the same thing. I think that this legalized political blackmail with combining controversial bills with neccessary ones needs to be stopped. If a bill cannot pass on it's own merits, it should not pass.
::Personally I still dont see a problem with Dubai.::
I don't either - but why use logic when it's so much more fun to rely on hysteria.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on March 9, 2006 11:43:17 AM new
By DAVID ESPO
20 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/...Y wMlJVRPUCUl
WASHINGTON - A Dubai-owned company said Thursday it is giving up its management stake in some U.S. ports, a move made as congressional leaders warned President Bush that both the House and Senate appeared ready to block the takeover.
It was not immediately clear whether the announcement would be enough to cool widespread sentiment in Congress to pass legislation blocking the deal, which has become a burdensome election-year problem for Republicans.
Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, took the Senate floor to read to colleagues a company press release disclosing its new stance.
"Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," DP World's chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in the statement that Warner relayed to other senators. The announcement did not specify which American company would be involved.
The move came as the White House, facing a Republican rebellion in Congress, played down President Bush's veto threat and said he was trying to find a compromise to resolve the uproar over the company's plan to take over significant operations at several U.S. sea ports.
DP World said it will transfer all interest in U.S. port operations to an American-based company, but it was unclear immediately how DP World would manage the divestiture. The company indicated that details of the surprise deal were still being worked out.
Warner said that Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum, prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, "advised the company ... that this action is the appropriate course to take." Dubai is in the emirates.
Just after Warner's announcement, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a chief critic of the deal was cautious.
"This is obviously a promising development, but the devil's in the details," Schumer said. "Those of us who feel strongly about this issue believe that the U.S. part of the British company should have no connection to the United Arab Emirates or DP World."
Republican congressional leaders had told Bush at a White House meeting earlier Thursday that both the House and Senate appear ready to block the takeover, GOP officials said.
In softening the White House's previous stand, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, "Our emphasis is not on trying to draw lines or issue veto threats. It's on how we can work together and move forward."
He said Bush did not mention his veto threat during his talks with the GOP leaders. "It doesn't mean the president's position has changed, it means our emphasis is on how we can work together to move forward," McClellan said.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said the leaders told Bush they want to protect the American people. "We will maybe have our differences, but we think we're going to continue to do that," the speaker told reporters.
The fast-moving developments came one day after a GOP-controlled House committee voted 62-2 to block the transfer, which has prompted a GOP revolt — made all the more striking because it is related to the war on terrorism.
Senate Democrats also demanded a vote on the issue, and while Republicans struggled to prevent one, they conceded they were on the political defensive.
"I admire what the House did," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "They said we know the president feels strongly about this. We know he said he's going to veto this. But we're going to do it because we think we have an obligation to our constituents."
Senate Republican GOP leaders had been hoping to prevent any votes until the conclusion of a 45-day review of the deal. At the same time, administration officials were using the time to try and ease the concerns of lawmakers.
That strategy collapsed in dramatic fashion on Wednesday, when the House Appropriations Committee overwhelmingly signaled its opposition to the deal.
Increasingly, it appeared the controversy was headed in one of two directions — a veto confrontation between Bush and Congress, or the decision by the company to shed its plans. The company had arranged to hold the rights as part of its takeover of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British company that holds contracts at several U.S. ports.
Bush has defended the deal, on grounds of open, free trade, and, he says, because the United Arab Emirates has been a strong ally in the war on terror.
By a 62-2 margin, the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday attached the ports legislation to a $91 billion bill providing funds for hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
posted on March 9, 2006 05:19:24 PM new
The ports deal is the very old GOOD COP BAD COP PLOY.
Just remember and mark the names down of the G.O.P. lawmakers that pretend they are breaking away from Bush. The same G.O.P. lawmakers that LOCKED STEPPED AND VOTED with Bush for 5 1/2 years. The same G.O.P. lawmakers that will vote against the MIDDLE AND WORKING CLASS AGAIN if re-elected.
Don't let yourself be tricked by these GREEDY BASTARDS again.
DO YOU FEEL SAFER NOW WITH ONLY ONE PERCENT OF THE CONTAINERS ENTERING THIS COUNTRY BEING CHECKED????
posted on March 9, 2006 05:47:13 PM new
In an unrelated move, the United Arab Emirates have announced that they will no longer accept US dollars. Future payments for oil exports can be paid for in any trading currency except US dollars. UAE officials were quick to point out that this move had been planned for several years and was completely coincidental to the recent attempt by US politicans to prevent their lawful acquisition of P&O assets. The UAE also announced the sell-off of its US dollar reserves; they will be replaced with a basket of Euros, Yen and Swiss Francs.
In other news the Saudi Arabian government announced it was also reviewing it's 18.5% ownership of the USA and was looking to sell off some of it's US assets.
