(AP) Who'll Buy Dubai's U.S. Port Operations? (O.K. geniuses, now what?!)

TownHall ^ | March 10, 2006 | TED BRIDIS

[teddyballgame]

The Dubai-owned company that pledged to surrender its $700 million worth of U.S. port businesses amid a furor on Capitol Hill wants to guarantee it doesn't lose money on the deal. But now that DP World is out of the political frying pan, it could find itself confronting a fire sale of its American assets.

Faced with unrelenting pressure from Congress, Dubai's ruler said DP World will transfer to an unspecified American company all U.S. port operations it acquired when it paid $6.8 billion for London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

In its statement, DP World said its decision was based on the understanding that it will have time to coordinate the complex transfer and that "DP World will not suffer economic loss."

[gakrak]

I'm pulling for Halliburton. That will drive the lefties just insane. They should know that you should be careful for what you wish for you may just get it. Amen.

[rhombus]

You might object if Congress decides to buy it or subsidize someone to buy it.

[bigeasy_70118]

Does the Bush Doctrine apply to the UAE?

Or is it only to be trotted out when politically useful? UAE is still an active supporter of Hamas. Ergo, they're with the terrorists and should not be involved in our port operations.

The demagougery on this issue came from the Bushbots, who are so intellectually inconsistent, their heads must be spinning.

[The Old Hoosier]

I didn't even share my own thoughts. It's just that Mitt is a marginal canidate now, less known than most of those others. There's no question that the poll is being bombed by his supporters, it's the equivalent of Lieberman or Kucinich leading a Dem 2004 online poll.

Mormons are the first people I'd think of as Mitt's rabid supporters -- I doubt that Massachusetts Republicans are bombing the poll.

But Mitt can't win, and his religion is part of the problem. I'm Catholic, and I've always viewed Mormons as odd, but that makes me pretty tolerant compared to evangelicals. Most southern protestants will never support a Mormon, simple as that.

[Final Authority]

Not a GWB basher here but neither am I a GWB rump swab (Howie Carr's term for hacks, blind supporters and BushBots). I tell 'em as I see 'em. I have been mostly on GWB's side of the WOT and the economy all along until he made that ill advised (very stupid) threat that he would veto congressional action to cancel the UAE ports deal (even though a day or two later he said he knew not of it in advance; that sealed the issue for me and many others, BTW).

It is clear we have a wounded lame duck Presidency. It is clear that unless things happen really fast we could see Pelosi becoming speaker in January. The train has come off the tracks, the borders are still an open sewer, GWB still speaks of giving amnesty to criminal aliens, and he will only use the veto to further his idea of globalism.

Will the real conservative please stand up.

[lewislynn]

Great diplomacy. I'm glad your not in the State Department.

Diplomacy or lack thereof works both ways. You prefer one sided appeasement, I don't.

[Jim_Curtis]

Let's see if I have the "Dane conservatives" philosophy right: If we don't allow an Islamic regime to manage our sea borders we must then accept communism and if we don't allow invaders to stream across our land borders we must accept economic collapse?

[Final Authority]

You didn't have to share your thoughts. I could figure it out as soon as you identify a person using their faith tradition. So you do share an unreasonable intolerance with your fellow Christians? You admit it. How sad.

[teddyballgame]

Bush Quotes from today:

"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," the president said. "In order to win the war on terror we have got to strengthen our friendships and relationships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East."

"UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror," Bush added. "They are a key partner for our military in a critical region, and outside of our own country, Dubai services more of our military, military ships, than any country in the world.

"They're sharing intelligence so we can hunt down the terrorists," Bush added. "They helped us shut down a world wide proliferation network run by A.Q. Khan" - the Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, he said.

"UAE is a valued and strategic partner," he said. "I'm committed to strengthening our relationship with the UAE."

[Dane]

Let's see if I have the "Dane conservatives" philosophy right: If we don't allow an Islamic regime to manage our sea borders ...

Well it took you 22 words to perpetuate the big lie. No islamic republic was going to manage the US's sea borders.

[The Old Hoosier]

I don't think you actually read my post.

And whether my view is reasonable or not, it reflects the reality of the situation.

[XJarhead]

And then, we can end outsourcing.

Presumably, you'd have no problem with all other countries expelling all U.S. companies that operate within their borders.

[Stultis]

Wait and see the solution will cost plenty of taxpayer cash.

Exactly. The 'Rats are already talking about tax credits for American port management companies.

Oh, and the $10,000,000,000 Dubai was going to spend buying commercial aircraft from Boeing? Well, we'll see.

[TatieBug]

Bet they get in on some of the action...The D's will really have a stroke!

[Final Authority]

When you apply you observations of a group to an individual what are you? That becomes prejudicial. When ones observations cause an intolerance for that group without reasonable basis of fact, that is bigotry. You have done both, haven't you?

We all are in many ways. For example, I would not walk down the streets of certain sections of Boston at night because I have certain prejudices that I can use to discriminate my actions with. The question becomes, are those fears and the resultant discriminatory actions reasonable? Based on the fact that certain areas of Boston have excessively high crime rates, and I know where they are, my actions are reasonable.

That is exactly what you have to ask yourself, nothing more, are my actions resulting from observations and facts reasonable? That is all anyone can ask but everybody should endeavor to do.

[The Old Hoosier]

There's no question, to give another example, that LDS on FR were hyping the candidacy of DeLay's Mormon opponent, Campbell. And on the other side, DeLay was definitely playing to anti-Mormon sentiments in his district when he highlighted Campbell's fundraising trips to Utah -- was he not?

Look, I have no problem with people looking out for their own, that's fine, I approve of it and I do it myself in real life. Just you can't expect others not to notice transparent poll freeping like that. I'm not a bigot for pointing it out, either.

And when it comes to Romney, I'm not telling you what I want to happen, I'm telling you what's going to happen. I find Romney, weird religion and all, preferable to Allen, another ole-boy swaggering Southerner like we have now.

[Stultis]

And maybe the Arabs will receive the message sent in this debacle.

Stop pumping billions of dollars into the American economy, spend your money in France instead?

[Jim_Curtis]

I have no problem with Bush's position on this matter. It would be unwise for the President to take a different position than what he has but as for the rest of us, that's a different matter.

Bush taking an anti position would be like him saying: "Thanks for your help, ally, but we don't trust you managing our ports because you might slip something by us that will endanger our country". That might be the fact of the matter but it would be horribly unwise for any President to send that message.

[Obadiah]

I appreciate your thoughts. I pretty strongly disagree with you, but I appreciate your explanation.

[Final Authority]

The more we can civilly discuss the issue the more civil we get and achieve a better understanding of the issue and each other. That is good. That is also precisely what will happen in the next two years leading up to the primaries and the Presidential election. People will see Mitt for what he is, not for what a LDS is. The word is out, and many others, not affiliated with Mitt or his campaign seek to educate potential bigots about the true Mitt Romney, not the Mormon who intends to run.

Was it right to identify GWB as the drunk who wants to be reelected? Maybe it was, but it wasn't accepted because we all knew GWB was more than a former drunk. Those who know Mitt and who will know Mitt will see him for the true conservative that he is, the fine family man, the fine executive, a fine leader, a civil man, an ambassador of the American way, and hopefully, the great President he will make.