Bush would accept slight delay in ports deal-Rove

Reuters ^ | Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:19 PM ET

[Sub-Driver]

Bush would accept slight delay in ports deal-Rove Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON, Feb 23 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush would accept a slight delay in permitting Dubai Ports World to acquire a British company that operates six key U.S. ports, senior White House adviser Karl Rove told Fox News.

When asked if Bush would accept a slight delay in implementing the takeover of P&O , Rove said: "Yes, look, there are some hurdles, regulatory hurdles, that this still needs to go through on the British side as well that are going to be concluded next week.

[3D-JOY]

I have read all the way to the end now and agree with all your posts...I was glad to read your first and you have just made the case more clearly with each one following ...

A lot of face saving is needed but this will go through ...mostly since NO American firm wants the business and other ports have foreign management. This fact was unknown to most people before this fiasco.

[ex-Texan]

First, there is a legally mandated 45 day delay. Then there will be a full Congressional investigation. Many questions need to be answered. I hope the members of Congress are up to it.

[clawrence3]

FDR was allied with Stalin and Congress didn't even think about infringing THAT war power. Thanks for the lesson though.

[Torie]

I suspect the end game is that US ports will be sluffed off, from the deal. What the company really wanted were the more profited Asian ports poised for huge growth. The US ports were just poor cousins. That was in the WSJ I think. Hopefully, the US ports will be sold off to some union busting outfit, say from Singapore. Apparently, the buyer just announced a delay in that part of the deal. That I suspect is the precursor to the sluff.

[ndt]

"FDR was allied with Stalin and Congress didn't even think about infringing THAT war power. Thanks for the lesson though."

What they choose to do is not the same thing as what they have the power to do. Also, your analogy is weak, I don't recall FDR allowing Stalin to run any mission critical U.S. operations on U.S. soil.

[CWOJackson]

I hope it doesn't fall victim to this BS. DP World is very good at managing their port operations. I won't fault Singapore, I've had to visit some of their shipyards numerous times, but I'll give DP World the head up on commercial port operations.

The more efficient the operator the greater the dividends to us.

[sinkspur]

suspect the end game is that US ports will be sluffed off, from the deal.

Why?

Torie, don't tell me you've bought into the idiot xenophobia that the generic beer crowd is spouting?

At bottom, the opposition to this is based on blatant, ignorance and racism.

After this is over, we owe the UAE an apology for acting like a bunch of rubes.

[Michael Barnes]

Offer more rope.

Yup..I do believe we have seen this "type" of tactic time and again..This whole "story" is still very young. Lot's of plays left before all is said and done (IMO anyway)

[Torie]

Ya, to us, economically, as opposed to the company. That factor doesn't matter at all in the current mix. Given the poltical climate, taking over the US ports even it could happen, is probably a poor business decision.

[Torie]

I was making a prediction, based on the economics, and the political climate. My views when making a prediction, are irrelevant. I have no problem with the UAE, qua the UAE. My only concern, is that the odds are perhaps higher than with a British company, or whatever, that there may be more sleepers who could leak info about the ports. Whether there is any info worth leaking about the ports, and their operations, I don't know. That is beyond my pay grade.

[CWOJackson]

I'm not sure Singapore will would want to get involved in a followup. They wouldn't stand up to this level of scrutiny/accusation any better then DP World; even less given DP World's history with our military.

[Torie]

Maybe, I just thought they might be a more union busting outfit. Sell it to David Murdoch.

[CWOJackson]

It would be more union busting without a doubt...can you image how the unions would stir that up?

The Singapore government eats children!!!!

[Torie]

Well that would all be entertaining would it not?

[CWOJackson]

What we really need is a press release saying that Walmart has decided to enter the commercial port operations business. That should get the unions and protectionists in high voice quickly.

[Torie]

LOL.

[CWOJackson]

Don't you wish we were allowed to post fake press releases. That would be such a fun thread to watch.

[Torie]

Definitely.

[Necrovore]

Would you like a paper bag to breath into now?

[ndt]

" Congress is 99% of the freaking problem."

I generally divide it 33.3 / 33.3 / 33.3 executive / legislative / judicial. But then again, thats why it works so well.

" Congress's role is to pass laws that ensure (and fund) security at the ports"

No, Congresses role is to pass laws, period. Oh, and impeach presidents and borrow money, and regulate commerce with foreign nations.

"..anything beyond that is their penny anty bullshit attempt to have more control to this situation than they are empowered to"

Strange, I don't see port management anywhere in the Constitution. Which means that unless you are arguing that it is somebodies constitutional right to run the port (impossible since we are talking about foreign entities), then Congress is well within their power to regulate it.

" And as for an over-rideen veto - if the law violates a trade treaty that has been ratified..."

Do you actually know of a specific treaty this would violate or are you just throwing it out there in case it sticks?