Scotch the ports deal

The Washington Times ^ | February 22, 2006

[KarlInOhio]

In two weeks time, the ports of New York and New Jersey, Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Orleans will go under contract to a government-owned company in the United Arab Emirates.

< snip >

The most immediate thing Congress can do is ask that President Bush put a hold on the deal and order the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to conduct a 45-day investigation of Dubai Ports World. Mr. Bush yesterday vowed, with a certain heat, to veto a ports bill; firm congressional action may nevertheless lead him to reconsider. There is a chance the deal would dissolve with the tougher 45-day review -- this has happened to previous reviews by the foreign investment committee -- and in this case it is clearly warranted. Last week, it emerged that both Dubai Ports World and Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the seller, specified that an agreement by the U.S. government not to make a formal investigation as a condition for the deal. This is exceedingly odd; this is enough to persuade Congress to push the review. < snip >

[Marine_Uncle]

After I posted a short response to this posts, I started to wade through all the commentors. I sense what CharlesWayneCT has posted makes much sense. My comments did not deviate to much from what CWCT brought out.
One thing is for sure. If O&P is to exit the operation then someone has to take over. And this appears to be a case of a mother company switch, not one of a new company stepping in to do the work at the ports. In short, nothing changes at the port operanda level, only who reaps part of the end profit stream and pays the checks.
So the more I see, the less apprehensive I am on this issue. The L/MSM appear as usual not to be making clear the facts.

[dynachrome]

"I'll just have to wait to see where Fat Ted falls "
"Scotch the ports deal"


I think it is obvious where Chappaquidick Fats will fall! :)

[Dick Bachert]

Sounds like a plan to me.

[anton]

Wow, you're right! If Peanut Boy is for it it has to be bad. Of course, Peanut Boy may not have thought about it and just reacted before the attendants at the Psychiatric Hospital where he resides got him in front of he TV in the dayroom to see what Woof Blitzer said about it.

[sarasota]

Good news and thanks.

[sarasota]

Rush had a longshoreman call in this morning and the discussion became quite heated, to say the least.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Well, it doesn't have to be that complicated. The law required a review, the review was completed. The review turned up nothing. Bush has stated that there is no security issue.

Now, people want him to "explain", but there is nothing to explain -- if he found a security issue, he could explain what it was, but how does he "explain" what he DIDN'T find.

He did say that they did a complete review, he has provided details of who participated. But what else can he say? If there are no deals, he can't explain the deals that weren't made.

So it could simply be that nobody who actually is responsible for our security thinks that security is effected by the deal.

That would be in agreement with the interviews I've heard with dock workers, port managers, and others who would be in a position to know, like former DHS chair Tom Ridge.

[CharlesWayneCT]

It might, but what else is there to review?

IF congress wants to have its own review, they should have started back in December instead of waiting until it was too late. But it could still run a review next week and be done before March 2.

But it's not clear that there is anything they have to "review". Are they going to have a public hearing about the UAE and whether it is a good ally? Will they call in the head of the DP World company? I'm not saying they shouldn't.

But I will say that people who say the Administration needs to do a "more throrough review" are simply assuming that a real review would cancel the deal so if they didn't cancel the deal they must not have done their job.

The administration insists they did a full review, and they don't need more time to rehash the same review.

[right-wingin_It]

I see a risk with Dubai because it's arab and also because it's state owned. But then again, I'm not happy with any nation "controling port operations". There's free market on the one hand in the port business I suppose, but then there's national security on the other.

I understand port security is a separate program that is run by our government, but it's so unacceptable right now, how can we make more room for hanky panky with a deal like this?

If people worry that we will be treating Arab states unfairly, then let's just scrap ALL foriegn operated ports! The majority of our ports are still American owned. We can do this. We're a sovergn nation. Do it now, and we have a hill to climb...Do it later, and it'll be a mountain. No pain, no gain

[CyberAnt]

Read this and realize our congress was the culprit - not Bush:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583784/posts

[GOP_1900AD]

Some people inside the inner loop have more passion about their utopian "Flat World" economic ideology than they do about the long term good of the GOP (or, if you prefer, the more generic term "the Right"). Norquist and the DoS Arabists (as well as other cells of Arabists in other departments and services) may have been a value add back in the Reagan years, but these days they are a liability. The failure of the leadership to realize this is a bonehead move. Nothing is more important in the long term than keeping the faith of Main Street. If Main Street is not with us, we're hosed. I know the idologues who post here will flame me, but I really don't care. In fact, I formally invite them all to take a hike and either go join the Dims or form their own party - maybe they can call it the "Flat World Party," the "Fast World Party," or perhaps the "Bottom Line Party." I say to them all, don't let the door hit ye on the arse.