Posted on 03/10/2006 10:28:49 AM PST by RWR8189
PROTECTIONISTS, REJOICE! The dastardly United Arab Emirates company that would have presumed to unload containers of underwear and toothpaste on U.S. soil has backed down, and it will now divest its U.S. port interests to an American entity. Rest assured, the nation is now safe from dangerous Middle Eastern accountants and port logistics specialists.
Dubai Ports World did what was necessary, if not necessarily fair, on Thursday by agreeing to give up the U.S. operations of its newly acquired British ports company. The House Appropriations Committee had voted 62 to 2 on Wednesday to block the deal; a similar bill was pending in the Senate.
Although President Bush rightly stood by the acquisition and vowed to veto any bill that stood in its way, he was fighting a losing battle that only deepened a growing rift in the Republican Party. Dubai Ports World officials wisely recognized that they had to put some distance between themselves and their new U.S. assets. The company probably will sell its U.S. assets or create a U.S. company with a separate board to run them.
Much as we wish it would go away, the fight may not be over yet.
For one, the terms of the divestiture remain unclear, and some members of Congress are demanding more details. Will it be enough for Dubai Ports World to create a U.S. subsidiary? Will it have to open headquarters in the United States? Pay its employees in dollars?
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
That's all I was trying to find out.
Isn't making policy decisions based on feelings what *use* to be considered a hallmark of liberal Ds?
I'm sorry if my use of the word, "fear" was somehow off-putting.
Thus coming full circle to reinforce my original point. Thanks.
You didn't answer my question, you side stepped it. :-)
Nope.
It's very similar to hearing Beaver argue with Wally, and having him say........."Oh, yeah??" and think he's won the fight. :)
btw, I don't believe I've seen the word tossed around quite as much before as on these port threads, do you? Seems like the borgs have lost all the arguments on this one. :)
A belated 'thank you' for that, btw!
It is interesting how the side who supported Schumer and Hilly don't seem to care if they lose support of rock-ribbed rational conservatives . . . but I suppose since they're just going on feelings, and not thinking thru the consequences, that makes sense.
Say the denial a million times, it won't make it so.
Ditto your claim to have "given facts."
Assurances and hyperbole are not facts.
There ya go. The Pentagon isn't always right.
Politics beat out the DOD's wishes quite often, in this case it beat out plain common sense.
Yes it did. And look how many of our dear military men paid the price for that miscalculation with their lives.
The U.S. Coast Guard is in charge of the security of the ports. They have said that there was no danger in this deal.
If I were walking down a dark street and felt afraid (as you do about this deal), but knew that the U.S. Military was in charge of my security, I would NOT be afraid.
That is the answer to your question.
May I take a crack at it?
On many occasions I've had the feeling I'm being watched, or followed. That's basic human nature. Does that mean I should have acted on all those feelings?
If you're walking down the street and you 'feel' you are being followed, do you just start running with abandon? Or do you look around, gather evidence, then react?
That step was missing here. There was no evidence of danger.
Why do y'all continue to toss those two names out when you good and well, we'll just toss, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton right back at ya?
Get it?
There are reasonable people on this thread. You just don't happen to be one of them. Please don't post back to me.
This conservative repub thinks the Bush Bros. stepped on it when they said How are they supposed to "feel" knowing we gave the Brits confidence in running our ports but won't extend the same to Arabs---they might be be so willing to let us use their facilities or intelligence in fighting the war.
That is reason alone not to let another government manage our ports ---since clinton's finger prints are all over this---
Its not scrapped. Its going to be run by Patty Murray's husbands company out of Seattle (SSA). The Dems are going to pick up a ton of money.
Because the R party now has a problem.
Their main selling point has been, "We'll oppose the Ds when they try to use govt to interfere in private business matters".
This proves no, they won't.
Carter and Clinton aren't in power any more, btw . . . :-D
btw, we're trying in Ohio, to get the same successful game plan that got our President reelected (what fun it was to be part of that campaign!), to get a rock solid conservative Governor in place.
Blackwell is one impressive guy. VERY conservative, not afraid of anything. He's exactly what we need to get this state back on track.
Yep, the GOP just funded the democrat party.
That's where your argument falls apart. The facts are wrong.
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.