Posted on 03/09/2006 9:10:40 AM PST by Blue Turtle
Breaking....
(Excerpt) Read more at drudgereport.com ...
I'll believe it when a veto is over-ridden.
Say no to globalism and the "no-borders' world community.
The President said it would be a long hard war.....
but little did we know that Congress would join up with the terrorists!!
Republicans: Ports Deal Doomed in Congress
Mar 09 12:09 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
f15024660788@news.ap.org Republican congressional leaders told President Bush Thursday his plan allowing a company owned by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emiratews to take control of some U.S. port operations faces certain defeat in Congreess, GOP officials said.
Bush, however, insisted again that he would veto the legislation if it reaches his desk.
The GOP leaders conveyed the news one day after a House comittee voted 62-2 to block the deal and Senate Democrats demanded a vote.
The ports provision was added to a must-pass measure funding the war in Iraq and providing new hurricane relief. The White House expessed concern that the tactic could "slow down passage of vital funds and resources" but said Bush's veto threat still stood.
"Our focus is on continuing to work with Congress to move forward on this issue," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters. "The lines of communication are open. There are members who have concerns. We believe it's important to work with Congress to address those concerns, and find a way forward."
The House panel's vote spurred calls by Democrats in the Senate.
"I admire what the House did," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D- Nev., said on the Senate floor. "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 Democrats were trying to attach a measure blocking DP World's entry into the U.S. maritime industry to legislation designed to overhaul lobbying rules.
Deep public opposition to the ports deal has made the issue a dangerous one for congressional Republicans. Despite their own concerns, Senate GOP leaders have been trying to help the administration ease congressional worries about the proposal and are hoping to avoid an early showdown vote on the issue in their chamber.
"This issue should not be tangled up on the debate over whether or not to strengthen our lobbying disclosure laws," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who has been a leader on both issues.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., offered the ports amendment on Wednesday, saying the Senate must act because of public opposition to the ports deal.
"We believe an overwhelming majority will vote to end the deal," he said.
Senate Republican leaders were trying to block a vote on the ports deal through a procedural vote that could occur as early as Thursday. That tactic was likely to fail, which could prompt Republicans to temporarily pull the lobbying reform bill from the floor to avoid an immediate defeat on the ports measure.
Bush has promised to veto any legislation blocking or delaying DP World from being able to operate U.S. port terminals as part of its takeover of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British company that holds contracts at several U.S. ports.
By a 62-2 margin, the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday ignored that threat and voted to bar DP World, which is run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports. The provision was added to a must-pass measure funding the war in Iraq and providing new hurricane relief.
Since House lawmakers attached the ports language to a must-pass $91 billion measure financing hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush's veto threats may carry less weight with lawmakers.
The imbroglio over the port operations deal overshadowed the substance of the funding measure for Iraq operations and rebuilding projects on the Gulf Coast.
The underlying $91.1 billion spending bill provides $67.6 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $19.1 billion in new money for hurricane relief and rebuilding along the Gulf Coast.
The bill would bring total funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to $117.6 billion for the budget year ending Sept. 30. Total spending on Iraq and Afghanistan since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 would reach almost $400 billion.
The Appropriations Committee plan largely adopts Bush's requests for the war, the bulk of which would fund operations and maintenance costs, replacement of equipment, and personnel costs.
For hurricane relief, the House measure adopts Bush's $4.2 billion request but does not dedicate the money exclusively for Louisiana as he requested. The $19.1 billion for hurricane relief would bring total hurricane-related spending to more than $100 billion.
The panel approved the underlying measure on a voice vote late Wednesday, and the full House could consider the measure as early as next week.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/09/D8G862S06.html
That's about the silliest post I'll read today.
The show's not over till the fat lady (the Beast) shrinks.....
A bunch of damn political cowards! Looks like Fortress Americana will win. Too damn bad.
Thank God that some Republicans in congress have some sense. If only the same could be said for the Bush admin.
That's called desperation. We see it all the time in the DUmmie FUnnies because they can't accept their minority status.
Give it time...
Good. It gives Bush the cover he needs to get out of this deal.
So much for the President trying to work with them...but agreeing to 45 day review!!!
He KNEW they would do this...that is why he preemptively said he would VETO!!
Given the Viet Nam model where Congress jumped in with the Comms there should be no surprise. Punish your friends, reward your enemies.
Umm, no. Screw the US Navy.
Yeah, I guess, it's not even noon.
The horse left the barn. There's no going back.
Dubai threat to hit back
By Roxana Tiron
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.
It is not clear how much of Dubai’s behind-the-scenes anger would be followed up by action, but Boeing has been made aware of the threat and is already reportedly lobbying to save the ports deal.
The Emirates Group airline will decide later this year whether it will buy Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner or its competitor, Airbus A350. The airline last fall placed an order worth $9.7 billion for 42 Boeing 777 aircraft, making Dubai Boeing’s largest 777 customer.
Dubai in mid-February also established the Dubai Aerospace Enterprise, a $15 billion investment to create a company that will lease planes, develop airports and make aircraft parts to tap into growing demand for air travel in the Middle East and Asia.
The family-ruled sheikhdom may buy as many as 50 wide-body aircraft from Boeing and Airbus during the next four years, according to Aerospace Enterprise officials.
The UAE military also bought Boeing’s Apache helicopters. Meanwhile, Boeing has been in talks with the emirates to try to sell its AWACS planes.
An industry official with knowledge of Boeing’s contracts with Dubai said that the company has been involved in the emirate and that it would take a lot “to knock” those relationships.
“Nothing about the [ports] controversy diminishes our commitment to the region,” said John Dern, Boeing’s corporate spokesman. He added that at this point the company has no indication that there is or will be an impact on the company.
Any repercussion to Boeing could put House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in a delicate position. Boeing’s decision to move its headquarters to Chicago has been seen as calculated to facilitate a close relationship with Hastert. He is against the ports deal, and his office did not return calls by press time.
Several businesses have expressed concern that the controversy over the $6.8 billion ports deal could damage trade with the UAE. Dubai is one of the seven emirates. The United States and the UAE are meeting next week for a fourth round of talks to sign a free-trade agreement. The American Business Group of Abu Dhabi, which has no affiliation with the U.S. government, said that Arabs may hesitate to invest into the United States, according to a report by Reuters.
A Republican trade lobbyist said that because the ports deal is a national-security issue blocking it would not be in violation of World Trade Agreement rules.
“In terms of them retaliating legally against the U.S. … I don’t think there are many options there,” the lobbyist said.
But when it comes to the emirates’ cooperation in the war on terrorism and in intelligence gathering, there is concern that some help may be pulled.
“If we reject the company in terms of doing the [ports] work, they are going to lose a lot of face. In the Arab culture, losing face is a big deal,” a former government official said. “We risk losing that help. It is not an empty threat.”
Dubai is a critical logistics hub for the U.S. Navy and a popular relaxation destination for troops fighting in the Middle East. On many occasions since the ports story erupted, the Pentagon has stressed the importance of the U.S-UAE relationship.
Last year, the U.S. Navy docked 590 supply vessels in Dubai, plus 56 warships, Gordon England, deputy secretary of defense, said in a Senate hearing last month. About 77,000 military personnel went on leave in the UAE last year, he added.
During the hearing, he warned about the implications of a negative decision on the ports deal: “So obviously it would have some effect on us, and I’d not care to quantify that, because I don’t have the facts to quantify it. It would certainly have an effect on us.”
Although owned by the Dubai government, the company at the heart of this controversy, Dubai Ports World, is trying to distance itself from any kinds of threats, said a lobbyist closely tracking the deal.
Another lobbyist monitoring the controversy said K Street still believes there will be a compromise that allows the Dubai deal to go through while meeting congressional security concerns, even though a bill aimed at that result, put forward by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.), was widely repudiated amongst lawmakers Tuesday.
Senate leaders have indicated that they would wait to take action until the new 45-day Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review is completed.
Meanwhile, in London, DP World cleared the last hurdle for its take over of P&O. The Court of Appeal in London refused Miami-based Eller & Co., which opposed the deal, permission to appeal against clearances for the legal and financial measures necessary to implement the takeover.
P&O said it expects to file the requisite court orders, making the takeover terms binding on DP World, according to the Financial Times.
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030906/news1.html
As I said several days ago, the only way this deal will survive is for UAE to announce the end of the anti-Israel boycott.
Good. It's nice to be reminded once in awhile why checks and balances are a good thing.
If it's attached to funding for Iraq and Afghanistan (which I believe it is), Bush probably won't veto it without a line-item, which he doesn't have.
Yeah. Screw the war on terror. Who needs naval maintenance, air assets, troop housing, Iraqi training, etc. inside the Persian Gulf region. We can just do all that in Guam. It's only 7,500 miles away. (/sarcasm)
HUH???
I'm not sure what you're implying.
Try reading my comments on this subject over the past month or so.
The terrorists want us out of the middle east.
Congress will accomodate Bin Laden........
Americans are fat, laxy cowards shaking in their boots.
The only real men left are those on the front lines!!
Tone-deaf administration. A veto will likely ensure the Democrats will win control of the House of Representatives in November, IMO.
Good.
Dubya needs to understand that he needs to make a cogent and persuasive case for what he wants. If he can persuade the American people, he will be fine.
'Trust me' isn't good enough anymore. Most americans don't give him the benefit of the doubt. In fact, he doesn't deserve it much anymore. His problems will ease if he comes to terms with this sad fact.
Someone emailed me yesterday to ask what I think of this whole mess.
Frankly, right now, I don't know. Hillary and Chuckie finally managed to stage an attack on Bush that is working. They don't give a damn about American security, but for once they pulled off a successful propanda ploy with the potential to do some long-range damage, no matter how it is resolved.
I don't know what the best way is for Bush to pull it out at this point. But his advisers sure let him get blindsided. How come Schumer and Clinton were the ones who first made the announcement, and not Bush? Evidently Bush wasn't even warned that this was about to break loose.
Way to stab an ally in the back. Granted they aren't a perfect ally, but they are one nonetheless. The WoT just got a lot tougher to fight. Congratulations, way to go guys.
Well gosh, it's a good thing it's not actually UP to Congress then, is it?
He would find it darned hard to explain why the only bill he vetoed in five years was this one. That would open up a million questions, like, why didn't he veto McCain-Feingold? Why didn't he veto a few of those pork spending bills? Why didn't he veto . . . you name it.
I hope Mr.Hastert is going to be happy when the UAE cancels it's order for 24 Boeing 777-300ERs, 10 777-200LR Worldliners and eight 777 Freighters.
Watch the ChiComs now get the ports, any nobody will say a word about it.
so this has nothing to do with secuirty.
The cowardice in Congress is appalling!
Follow Schumer and Clinton off the cliff...they did...the lemmings!
How many containers from foreign ports have entered the US since Sept 11, 2001?
Why now so scared?
The scaredicat syndrome.
It was a terrible political mistake for Bush to issue his first real veto threat on this issue. Bush has not used his veto in six years, and the first time he does it looks like it has a good chance of being overridden. I am not agreeing with those who say it might be time for Bush to shake up his team with new blood for the final stretch.
I agree.
The UAE is a much needed partner that obviously many people dont understand.
It seems they are handling the port security in Dubai where all our Navy ships are located.
For some reason we can trust our soldiers lives with that level of security but its not good enough for us back at home.
Too many Americans are weak.
So we're going to throw out our ally, the UAE, who appear to be 'good', with the rest of the bathwater?
Okay, that might be a bit much. But when Harry Reid gets up in the well of the Senate and says our guys did a good thing, that's a good reason to pause and reconsider whether they actually did.
Idiots. Next, UAE retaliates by banning our ships from their ports and boots all U.S. troops out of the country. Real smart. Then they cancel the big Boeing 777 contracts. Yep, people around here have NO CLUE as to how damaging this stupid move is going to be. You can't insult allies like this and expect them to continue to support us.
Only time will tell if this decision will hurt us in the WOT.
From what I understand from talking to opponents of the deal, there's a compromise ready that will save face all around once the posturing and headline-grabbing are thru.
Bush is doing this to show he's tough, and will stick by his decision. I respect that.
Later, when a veto-override is imminent, he will offer the deal of creating an American based subsidiary of DPW to do this. DPW will still control the contract, and reap the rewards, there will just be a group of American middle men.
Like the Harriet Meirs nomination, Bush will come out of it looking like the great politician who can save all deals.
Republicans need a set. They got the 45 days they wanted, and despite that they've declared the deal dead.
Huh. Guess it really wasn't about security then, was it?
I agree, not to mention we will lose their intel and the terrorist will use this as a recruiting and propaganda tool
Congress does what their constituents tell them to. Many many Congress members - up for reelection - have been hearing from the voters on this issue. Of course, the voters are uninformed, but whose fault is that? Bush should have put out more info before this deal was done.
Damn straight!!! Pu$$ies every one of them! SOME REPUBLICANS LEAD BY POLLS INSTEAD OF DOING WHAT IS RIGHT.
Not much different than how klintoon governed!
I wonder how it feels to look behind you and see sheila jackson lee, maxine waters, chuck schumer, hildebeast, biden and kennedy agreeing with you? I WILL NEVER KNOW!!!
LLS
And too many don't realize that we are really in a shooting war.
And too few are making any sacrifices because of it.
This is a huge win for the Democrats and a huge blow to the war on terror.
Depending on anything from a potential enemy is certain blackmail......
"The only real men left are those on the front lines!!"
Hey now, you are NOT alone in this fight. There are plenty of us fighting fools and turn-coats!
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.