Then there's the land border...
Posted on 02/24/2006 4:56:54 AM PST by indcons
Those "yes men" are the people in our government who have the responsibility for our safety and security. If you think they simply do whatever Bush tells them, you should support impeachment, because if they can't evaluate a simple port deal why do you trust them to handle the REAL security issues?
Because NY, Philadelphia, LA, MIami gets people's attention whereas Gulfport, Savannah, Brownsville would not.
And the unions are concerned about future contract negotiations with them.
That's all you need, but nothing in this deal makes that more or less likely.
The issue isn't how many ports, it's whether DP World owning P&O has any negative impact on security. The experts all say it doesn't. The people who have access to the information necessary to evaluate that question say there is no negative security impact.
The opponents say that because UAE has a checkered past, we can't let them own the P&O company. But they haven't offered any evidence that DP World is an actual threat. And in fact, all the evidence says that they are NOT a threat.
So the opponents say that in the future they might be a threat. Yea, but we don't make decisions based on hypothetical futures. There is no evidence that DP world will become a threat -- just as there is no evidence that P&O wouldn't have become a threat.
>They certainly don't expect a further review to change things.<
They may hope the Dems block this.I heard somewhere that if we block the deal we have to cover the $6 Billion profit that is lost.
So just what the hell is 'controlled'? Do they bring in any employees, management, gather the profits? Is this one of the jobs that job exporters say 'Americans won't take'? What do those who 'control' actually control? Somebody please peer through the bullsh!t fog.
Apparently, many members of Congress are idiots.
This is a take over of a UK company, not a US company.
THey may, but the announcement is that they are going through with the deal. I don't think the U.S. can actually BLOCK the merger, at "best" we can terminate the leases, which means we have to pay them back the money and probably penalties.
Then we would re-bid the leases, and they could simply bid on them again, and there is nothing to keep them from WINNING the bids. If we instead restrict the bidding, the states and localities will have lost a bundle of money and have to raise taxes or cut services -- then lets see how important THEIR citizens think it was to stop this deal.
Good point.
Did you watch the "briefing" yesterday on C-Span? Hillary really got her knickers in a twist when one of the panelists (my memory fails me which one) politely disagreed with her "interpretation". Snort.
I think we just set a record for the number of links to the CBP website posted within five minutes.
I posted a link on another thread about container security. :-)
LOL, the vast majority of folks on FR have no clue as to what goes on at our Ports.
We've got to inform them.
How have you been?
Here is just a sample quote from her column wrt a veto:
"He (Bush) might want to rethink scuttling that record with this issue. The Republican-led Congress, heretofore beyond reluctant to challenge this president, just might call his bluff on this one. If it does, Bush will have no one to blame but himself. He's dedicated his entire presidency to throwing the fear of God into Americans and keeping it there.
Whatever gave him the idea that this port management contract with the UAE wouldn't meet with resistance in the "homeland"?
In other words, he taught the people well. Blind siding the American people with this is inexcusable. What did he expect?
Doing well! Still in my "temporary" assignment, going on two years now. :-)
You?
Just trying to survive this whole merger BS.
It's still Customs vs Immigration at our port and of course immigration is losing.
You are making a lot of assumptions. In my business I have signed many leases that are assignable to third parties subject to my approval. I can block assignment of those leases to another company without incurring any liability. There are companies that I refuse to do business with and I am not going to be forced into business with them because a contractor decides they want to sell my lease. The original company that signed my lease is still on the hook for honoring their contract with me and if they want to get out of it they have to find a buyer that meets my approval.
I am not sure what the situation is with the P&O port management leases but it is not automatic that we will owe them anything if we refuse to approve the transfer of these leases.
What would happen if they wanted to transfer them to Osama bin Ladin Port Management? Would we have to buy their leases back if we didn't like the idea of them transferring them to a terrorist? I doubt it.
And why is this suddenly more likely with the American mangement of a UAE owned company?
The exact same thing that happened this time, it would have to be vetted. In this particular example they would have to look for another purchaser.
Then there's the land border...
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.