Posted on 03/08/2006 2:53:43 PM PST by Ooh-Ah
House Appropiations Committe voted to block Dubai deal
IMO, he'll seek a way to keep the deal intact through back door means first. Should that and other options fail I have no certain idea if he'll carry through on the VETO.
But if ever he were going to do so, I do believe he would on this. The stakes in the WOT and our national security are too high. If Congress is determined to act irrationally, they should bear the brunt of the burden for the consequnces that follow. And I don't refer to political burdens, but a real stake in the outcome of our national security by alienating pivotal allies in this war.
Let them explain 10-20 years down the road to the American people why they wouldn't listen to facts but instead polls of an American populas who don't have access to the data the administration has offered..and summarily been rejected by these politicians for study.
You misunderstand. The 62-2 vote today was by the Appropriations committee voting for the amendment that will go in the bill.
House panel votes to block ports deal Fox News
March 8, 2006 04:20 PM
WASHINGTON — Despite a presidential veto threat, a House committee on Wednesday voted to block a controversial ports deal that has President Bush in the hotseat.
The House Appropriations Committee passed an amendment to attach to a $92 billion emergency supplemental funding measure for hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee vote was 62-2.
"The amendment is straight-forward and is a rifle shot crack to block the Dubai Ports World deal only. This is a national issue. This is a national security bill. We want to make sure that the security of our ports is in America's hands," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., committee chairman.
House Republicans led the charge to pass legislation that would block an administration-approved plan to hand over terminal operations at six U.S. ports to a UAE-owned company, Dubai Ports World. A British company, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., currently operates the terminals in question.
http://khon.com/khon/display.cfm?storyID=11869§ionID=1161
so we can racially profile who can own certain business' but we can't racially profile who flies on our airlines
Yep.
They don't give a damn about us..or national security..or anyone but themselves. All they care about is polls. Polls will be cold comfort on election day without voters pulling the lever for them. And, right now, the only reason I have to pull the lever is to keep Impeachment dogs at bay and protect our military. But I have to wonder, if I pull that lever will that stave off impeachment hounds and keep our military secure and keep a strong fight in the WOT? The Republicans have shown they aren't much apart from the Democrats in principle. All either of them care about is power and they'll do anything they think will help them to keep it.
Dubai Ports has no plans to sell US ops--report Wed Mar 8, 2006 9:18 PM ET
LONDON, March 9 (Reuters) - Port operator Dubai Ports World has no plans to sell its newly acquired operations managing six U.S. ports , despite a fierce political dispute in Washington, its head said in an interview published on Thursday.
DP World Chief Executive Mohammed Sharaf said his company would take all "humanly possible" measures to counter fears its takeover of the ports threatens U.S. security.
"We have not even thought of that (selling the port management operations) yet," he said in an interview with Britain's Financial Times newspaper. "We have a business to run -- the USA is part of it."
The newspaper's Web site (www.ft.com) reported that private equity groups had approached DP World about buying its U.S. operations. The report, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter, gave no more details.
You gave your opinion based on a preconceived notion that the UAE has a burning desire to spend 6 billion dollars to destroy a handful of terminals at several ports.
Security information will not be given to the government of the UAE.
You're assuming DP World is an intelligence arm of the UAE. Do you have any concrete information to back up that opinion?
It will be harder for an Arab terrorist to infiltrate the organization.
How so? It would probably be easier for an Arab terrorist to infiltrate a British company if that's what they wanted. A European company is much more sensitive to perceived suggestions of bigotry or prejudice.
Something as mundane as "the #5 radiation detector will be offline for repairs from 6/12 to 6/15" is information that should not be shared with an Islamic state.
What on earth makes you think there would be no redundancy built into the system....and they'd have access to HSD security info? Haven't you considered that it would be far easier to plant a terrorist in the Mercedes plant in Germany loading the containers that are sealed IN THE PLANT, knowing they're not going to be checked in the USA?
I've never said that the UAE has a history, or even a desire, to harm us. But their control of these terminals will give those who DO wish to harm us an easier entree.
You've made the assumption that because they're owned by Arabs, they're going to be predisposed to terrorist activities on our soil. You haven't shown any factual evidence that the same scenarios couldn't happen with an American owned terminal.
Let us hope principle prevails and the right thing will be done by him.
It is exceptionally dangerous to allow the lowest common denominator to dictate national security policies through ignorance and fear.
Agreed.
This post is total ignorance! They need our money dummy.
Thanks for proving my point!
Unfortunately, I have come to expect this kind of stunt all the way around. Just about the only way anything ever gets done on the hill these days.
"IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us."
The KORAN is radical, so potentially all of the Muslims are a problem except for the back sliding Muslims. That could be 90% world wide.
Real interesting. Thanks.
LOL. Will do, freema.
Yeah, I hear it's a popular getaway for Iranian mullahs...
BTTT
Yes. Miami is one of the major ports in the P&O transfer. I looked at that one early because it included an early lawsuit to stop the sale.
Tampa wasn't listed as one in the deal, but Tampa was/is the process of kicking out SSA in favor of P&O - I assume Tampa would also be transferred as part of the deal, assuming P&O is aiming to get out of the terminal operation business altogether.
2. Did I read right (giving a cursory glance) that Dems got all sort of $$ from the Miami port?
Not from the port, but from some of the business interests that facilitate operation of the port. Stolen money was donated to the DNC in 1994.
Laredo Morning Times - Thursday, June 4, 1998A little more at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581542/posts?page=731#731
BY CATHERINE WILSON
AP Business WriterMIAMI - Three men associated with the Port of Miami, including its ousted former director, were charged Wednesday with stealing $1.3 million and using the money on Super Bowl tickets, lingerie and bar tabs.
They also are accused of using stolen funds to donate $120,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 1994.
Since 1990, the three "have used the Port of Miami as a personal bank," said U.S. Attorney Thomas Scott. Calvin Grigsby, owner of the company that ran the port's container cargo cranes, and former- port director Carmen Lunetta were charged with conspiracy, embezzlement and money laundering. Port contractor Neal Harrington was charged with embezzlement and theft.
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.