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 ...
"So the R party is not the party of reason and evidence any longer.
The committee looked at the evidence against Dubai regarding 911 and the money laundering it's banks play hide and seek with, and determined this not a wise idea. They voted 62-2.
Now comes DH calling them names of all sorts. Now comes DH claiming he and he alone has evidence to the contrary that the committee was shown. Now comes DH claiming that the committee was lied to and that he is privvy to confidential info regarding dubai which will clear them from the charges of money laundering for terrorists?
If you are a dubai money launderer just admit it.
SSA of Seattle planned to work with DP World
By Alwyn Scott
Seattle Times business reporter
SSA Marine, by far the largest U.S.-based port operator, appears to be in prime position to take a role in running the U.S. assets of Dubai Ports World (DP World), the company at the center of the port-security controversy.
Seattle-based SSA had been planning to accept DP World as its joint-venture partner at ports in Philadelphia, Wilmington, Del., and Camden, N.J.
SSA was a partner in those ports with London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O). DP World purchased P&O in a $6.8 billion deal that closed this week.
On Thursday, DP World said it would transfer P&O's U.S. assets "to a U.S. entity" either by selling them to another company or setting up a corporate structure without management links to its government-controlled parent in Dubai.
Bob Watters, vice president at SSA, declined to comment on whether the company was interested in acquiring DP World's half of the joint venture, or its assets at other U.S. ports that would have been acquired by DP World. Those include Baltimore; Newark, N.J.; Miami; and New Orleans, all ports where SSA does not have operations.
SSA manages one of the largest terminals at the Port of Seattle.
Through the P&O purchase, DP World would have acquired half of Delaware River Stevedores, the joint venture with SSA. The venture operates port terminals at Philadelphia and Camden; in Wilmington its role is limited to stevedoring, or loading and unloading ships.
SSA has 150 port operations in at least nine countries, Watters said. In 2003 after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it won a U.S. government contract to operate the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr to handle aid and reconstruction cargo.
The company leases and operates seven container terminals in the United States. The next-largest U.S. competitor is Maher Terminals, which leases and operates the largest amount of terminal space at the ports of New York and New Jersey. Other large companies leasing U.S. terminals are foreign-owned, Watters said. And other big U.S. companies only operate terminals, but don't lease the land.
Watters said SSA saw no security issues in having DP World as its partner at the three East Coast ports.
In particular read below
Foreign involvement is nothing new - Kathleen Pender
Stevedoring Services of America is mostly a Democrat Party< donor.
Patty Murray's husband is big deal in the company.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1592783/posts?page=83#83
I would only ask of those who so vehemently opposed the port deal. How does it feel to have the Democrats party stick it so far up your A$$. How does it feel to help fund the Democrat party who used your fear and bigotry to misinform others. Does it feel good? I hope so. Congratulations
It's bye-bye Dubai deal - No showdown as firm backs outBY KENNETH R. BAZINET, JAMES GORDON MEEK and MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAUThe deal may also have other fallout. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she was still intent on banning foreign governments from running U.S. ports, though relationships with countries like UAE are "oftentimes in America's best interest."
Some critics of the furor have said the death of DP World's deal could lead Dubai to be less helpful in the war on terror. Clinton conceded, "There are legitimate concerns, I'm not going to deny that."
Asked if her proposed policy could backfire, she shrugged.
You asked not to be pinged. So you lied again I guess.
...........but I have to correct some lies you told.
False. I need to corrrect your lies.
(1) I made a simple comparison on defense and budgetary and philosophical issues. Deal with it. Find what ever you want. You couldn't deny a single thing. I made a joke about a book on the 'triangulation' thing, and it was you who 'went on and on' about the prospect.
(2) Yes, you did rag on Reagan. How 'even-handed' of you. And then right in this thread here you smeared him indirectly by accusing his defenders of myopia... Or still worse...of deifying Ronald Reagan. He humbly served God, and did not want nor need such. Although his service clearly warrants our undying gratitude. Apparently it has already died in you. Shee! 8th graders have such short memories.
(3)Regarding your repeated phoney evenhandedness here...you neglect the contradictions in that the current administration is embarked on tearing down the still-vital strategic deterrent legacy that the Reagan administration left...and this is done while China, Iran, North Korea et al rattle nuclear sabers...
More consternation is the fact that W is doing all this without the rationale of having to deal with Rats... While he is simultaneously ballooning the domestic spending beyond all reason...signing unconstitutional "good bills". And that is with a Republican Congress that didn't pressure him to be liberal.
Reagan never did any of that. So stick YOUR rose colored glasses where the sun doesn't shine. And get back on your meds.
(3) Your conservative credentials don't bear close scrutiny based on your color-blindness.
As for you not being moderate, you wore the shoe when you waded into this very thread and started the name-calling etc. in reaction to an observation about the ugly self-righteous nature of the moderates suddenly coming out!
Virtually no conservative pundit today is seriously calling W anything other than moderate. Not conservative.
Plus if we went through a list of issues, (I'll save you the trouble of digging back): I have a strange feeling you would line up 100% behind the more radical positions of W. Guest Worker-cum-Amnesty. No Border Fence. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. $15 Billion to Africa. The billions and billions squandered on the DOE and No Child Left Behind. Reagan tried to kill the DOE. Leaving Intact the NEA IRS status despite a slam-dunk legal case of their violatory politicking. Domestic spending run amok. How about the bribing off of Congress with the $48 billion of earmarks. All for an other unconstitutional trade agreement which perpetuates loss of U.S. industry, independence, and sovereignty. And let's not talk about the pell-mell destruction of the core of the U.S. strategic deterrent which even Xlinton didn't dare touch. And spending $16 billion annual at the Dept. of Energy to dismantle it. Underfunding the National Guard. Not growing the regular military instead to undo the worst of the Xlinton cuts. Failing to enforce IP at the WTO. Failing to enforce against China what few 'level playing field' trade rules there are, such as currency manipulation, etc. Leaning hard in support of CNOOC to buy up UNOCAL, as flagged by numerous politicos. No concern whatsoever about the trade deficit despite the clear hazard to the U.S. dollar and U.S. savings. Classifying Able Danger. Protecting and rehabilitating the Xlintons from their CRIMES. Many still ongoing. Sandy Hamburglar given a pass. Letting Harriet Meiers torpedoed the Solicitor General's case in the Michigan Affirmative Action case. And a number of others. Then nominating her for the S.Ct.
On the plus side, we do have Roberts and Alito. I am pleased with him for that. But as I mentioned before to you They are fine. And your condemnation of Reagan failed to reflect that he didn't, at the time, have a deep bench of conservative judges to select from...as Hugh Hewitt has often observed. The Federalist Society among others has made a big difference. But conservatives, being conservatives, we don't forget what went before.And Reagan lost the Bork nomination in part, and perhaps almost entirely, because Arlen Specter the Defector turned on the President and his nominee. This same Senator which the current White House went out of its way to interfere in State politics to save him from certain replacement by a solid conservative alternative. All on the bogus assertion of 'electability.' Reagan, we were always assured by the 'moderates' wasn't electable either.
This is the short list.
OWF, you expressly practice some queer form of "republican relativism" equating Reagan with Bush. That's your privilege and right. But it certainly appears to me that you are more akin to those Big Tenter Self-Righteous pontificators who attack conservatives as Xenophobes and bigots...or worse.
Zim supported it you mean. As I saw on another thread, haven't verified yet, but please apprise me if this is wrong:
Didn't the Israeli government reject the exact same company, DPW from buying terminal operations in its ports?
Read post 322.
We've "been told" all sorts of things. Very little of it gets to the nuts and bolts of what is going on, and virtually NONE of it gets to business options going forward. In fact, none of the discussion got to the point of showing the relationship between US-owned interests and P&O.The DP ports deal is not dead. DP owns the port terminal leases. The value of these leases is about $700 million. No American shipping company is big enough or has the assets to buy the terminals.
I get the feeling the US interests are going to be parted out. I stand by what I said above, and just now some of the relevant business relationships are being recited.
Seattle-based SSA had been planning to accept DP World as its joint-venture partner at ports in Philadelphia, Wilmington, Del., and Camden, N.J. ... DP World would have acquired half of Delaware River Stevedores ... SSA, declined to comment on whether the company was interested in acquiring DP World's half of the joint venture
I bet most of the other P&O interests in US operations were similar, half or controlling interest financially, not much hands-on in the US, rather an interest in postive cash flow and good ROI.
DP must sell the leases or lose money or they can sell 51% ownership of the terminal lesses to a American company in a joint venture for about 350 million and still have access to the port terminals.
The SHIPPERS will still have about the same access regardless. The problem is that Congress wnats the financil and operating rules to specify NO, ZERO interests to be held by a UAE owned company, but only in the narrow area of seaport operations. Don't want to toss out Emirates Air Freight, and all that other complicating stuf that comes with consistency.
I'm about as impressed with the handling of this deal as I was with the nomination and promotion of Harriet Miers (bless her heart for being a good sport). Oh well. Nobody is perfect, stuff happens and all that. It's just amazing to see it happen on such a scale as this. Petty errors are usually well buried.
Thanks for the ping, jec.
Pontificate all you want. Facts don't change just because people misrepresent them. I don't need to defend myself to someone who is as clueless as you are.
Now PLEASE, leave me alone. There are serious people on this forum, and there is serious communication with them to be had. You just aren't included.
Indeed. Thank you for your reply!
"You seem really determined to keep the arguments going. I thought the deal was off (at least for now) so what is the point?"
The point is to not let something this shameful happen again. My point is to educate people on why this was a GOOD deal and how the democrats fed on fear and played Republicans and Conservatives like fiddles. This is going to have repercusions for a long time and it can, and more than likely will, damage our country's financial standing.
Yes, as Rush Limbaugh said, really was a disgraceful display by Americans. The hate filled simply screamed down the facts
Interesting the continuing misrepresentation by the RINOs here that this was all the Rats doing and we should be alarmed for some reason.
We tried to save the Administration's face. But as Novak pointedly rebuked the President about the "imperial style" they wouldn't listen. Full-Steam Ahead. Iceberg ahead? Don't be silly. We're the Titannic and we're UNSINKABLE.
The Administration has been abusing its position to consistently undermine true conservative positions in many areas as pointed above. The Base has had enough. Everbody understands that the RATs merely switched sides...on this one issue, and that only temporarily no doubt...and echoed (usually badly, and over the top) the legitimate conservative concerns and issues. The conservatives started this argument over national security differences with the back-stabbing RINOs...but we're not going to stop there... and we will finish the job.
We were right. The RINOS were wrong. The phoney Big-Tenters are virtually always wrong. And they are the ones going around bent over in pain here.
That being said, we have tried to point out the appropriate political flexibility and maneuvers that the President should immediately execute to recover from this. So far he is just sulking. Which will sink him deeper in the pit.
It's beginning to look like W needs a 12 - Step program: "MLA: Moderate Liberals Anonymous" He has to admit he's been in denial.....
Note Post 325.
Isn't this a misuse of the term? I mean, I'm used to perjorative substituting for substance, but protectionism has to do with TRADE issues. This was a SECURITY issue. The objection had nothing to do with the economics of who gets the wage earning jobs, or what price something sells at--isn't that what protectionism addresses? It had to do with port security.
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.