Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US House to vote on ports despite company promise
Reuters ^ | Friday 10 March 2006 | Steve Holland and Susan Cornwell

Posted on 03/10/2006 2:21:04 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite

The U.S. House of Representatives will forge ahead with a vote on blocking an Arab-owned company from managing U.S. ports, to ensure the firm sheds its U.S. holdings as promised, a leadership spokesman said on Friday.

The Republican-run House's refusal to back away from the showdown vote was another blow to President George W. Bush, who suffered a stinging defeat on Thursday when Dubai Ports World said it intended to back out of the deal his administration had approved.

Reverberations from the political earthquake continued on Friday. The United Arab Emirates broke off talks on a free trade pact with the United States, although a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office said delays are common.

Bush said he was concerned the opposition sent a worrying message to Middle East allies.

"In order to win the war on terror, we have got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East," Bush told newspaper editors.

State-owned Dubai Ports World surrendered to unrelenting criticism from both Republicans and Democrats in giving up the management of some terminals at six major U.S. ports.

The UAE company said it would transfer the ports to a U.S. entity at the behest of Dubai's ruler, to allay concerns the deal posed a threat to American national security. Details of the transfer were not outlined.

The White House had hoped the announcement would resolve the unprecedented crisis between Bush and a Congress run by his own party in open revolt.

But Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, said the House vote on a provision to bar the deal would go ahead on Wednesday or Thursday anyway.

"It's a smart move to keep it (the legislation) in there, in case the Dubai thing doesn't work out," he told Reuters.

NATIONAL SECURITY

The outlook for a Senate vote was less clear. Senate Republican leaders have been trying to avoid one in the near future. Deal critic Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, wants more information from the White House.

"If things are as they appear, this is a great victory for national security. But make no mistake, we are going to scrutinize this deal with a fine-tooth comb to make sure the separation between American port operators and Dubai Ports World is complete and security is tight as a drum," he said.

Dubai Ports Chairman Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, asked if the firm would sell the U.S. port management rights, told Reuters: "All this is being worked out by our parties in the States."

But David Hamod, president of the National U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce, said it would be hard to find a U.S. company to step in.

"The advantage that the overseas company has is economies of scale. They're doing this on a global level and so it will be very difficult to find a U.S. company in this business large enough to take over the operations," Hamod said.

He also said his group was hearing calls for retribution, including keeping Americans out of Arab markets. "But it's a tiny minority of people who are arguing that," he said.

Bush, who had vowed to veto efforts to block the deal, praised the UAE as a committed ally in the war on terrorism.

"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," Bush said.

Treasury Secretary John Snow said his department's lawyers were in contact with DP World about its intentions. He also said the political furor was an isolated case, as he tried to limit damage to the U.S. free-trade image.

Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia, said congressional Republicans are running away from Bush this election year.

"In a way, the port deal was a godsend to them," Sabato said. "It allowed them to put a lot of daylight between themselves and a very unpopular president."

A new poll Friday registered another low of 37 percent in Bush's approval rating.

(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro, Doug Palmer and Tim Ahmann)


TOPICS: Breaking News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; alwaysrighteverytime; cantstopwhining; elitism; everyonemustlisten; minorityopinionrant; nutheads; port; ports; uae; uaezot; wearealwaysright
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-286 next last
To: Wasanother

"Sway with the wind Republicans."

This happened because of the split that has been on going within the Republican base for several years. It's down to the true Conservative Patriots and the Conservative, make a buck, globalist, elites, who have decided that America is up for sale, regardless of what the American people want. Beware the "Government Military Complex" is a statement made by Eisenhower that gives away this whole game. The sooner we get true Republic Conservatives in office the better and now is the time to do it. The Democrats smell blood in the water for a good reason, we know they don't give a damn. But the true Conservative and patriot of this country is going to rise and no matter how much they are reviled, they will save this country......and that is all that matters.


161 posted on 03/10/2006 6:30:37 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow ("You're either with us or with the terrorists." Time to live up to that statement Mr. President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon

No kidding.

For the first time in my life I'm forced to give McCain credit. Apparently he does have some sense.

Does it change the descriptions I have given of him in past? No. Does it change he's suited for the Presidency? No.

But it does illuminate not a ONE of the Republicans that have told our ally to screw itself because they are Arab deserves to be considered for the Presidency ABOVE McCain. because he's shown he's better than Frist and the rest. So does this mean I vote for no one in '08? Not sure, but I used to say I'd begrudgingly vote for a Republican...saving McCain, Newt or hagel. More names are joining that Hell No, to quote a certain congresswoman, list.


162 posted on 03/10/2006 6:37:05 PM PST by Soul Seeker (House Republicans Send a message: All Arabs are Genetically pre-disposed to terrorism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

I didn't see him so I appreciate the ping. As I said earlier, I am nearing the point of hostility towards the Republicans in Congress. (There are individual exceptions.) My favorite part is that they are trying to distance themselves from the President...as if they have a list of noteworthy achievements that weren't initiated by the White House. Let them run on their own stellar record.


163 posted on 03/10/2006 6:44:06 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
"And you sir.....are no Conservative in any sense of the word. "

I'll break silence to say..I am no "sir". I am a French Lady. Long Live America.

164 posted on 03/10/2006 6:44:19 PM PST by Earthdweller ("West to Islam" Cake. Butter your liberals, slowly cook France, stir in Europe then watch it rise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

It would be a shorter list to keep track of Republicans that don't do what you list.

Because right now I'm determined to give them what they fear most. Nope, not a nuke going off in a port, but a loss of their majorities. They've damn well earned it.

Three reasons to vote for Reps.

Judges--They wouldn't move on judges till we screamed bloody murder. Even now we have judges being filibustered and I simply DO NOT TRUST them to confirm a fifth Justice. I don't believe they will allow the balance on the court be changed. I just don't.

WOT- Warner resolution. McCain amendment. consultations on NSA taps. The way they have conducted themselves on these ports. I DO NOT TRUST THEM to hold firm in the WOT because they clearly haven't.

Impeachment- With an action like this they PROVE THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED not to impeach the President even with a Majority.

Therefore, I'm telling the Party it can go to hell.

I'll support Delay, probably Erlich & Steele, Harris and Blackwell and the Prez. Warner's even wormed his way back into my graces after his stupidity on judges, after the way he conducted himself here. But the rest of them? My Congressman can expect one less vote and the Reps can FORGET my voting for a probable RINO here in WA in '06 for Senate. Damn well not going to happen.

I hope all the usual Republican bashers and Third ways and Party cartel rhetoric spewing posters are punching their registration tickets to reward the Republican party in November for saving us from the evil UAE and G.W.B. After all, the damn fools in D.C. did this all for you. What a shocker this would be if you didn't...vote...for them. And what a fitting retribution this bunch in D.C. deserves.


165 posted on 03/10/2006 6:47:21 PM PST by Soul Seeker (House Republicans Send a message: All Arabs are Genetically pre-disposed to terrorism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
Watch the rerun.

as if they have a list of noteworthy achievements that weren't initiated by the White House

Precisely.

166 posted on 03/10/2006 6:50:48 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Damn right.

If Tom Delay were in charge none of this would have have reached this point. But the "purist" conservatives had to make sure he was removed. Well, what did we get? LOSE ANWR. ALMOST lose spending rate cuts. Tax cuts still on table. Ports fiasco. THIS is what happens when people abandon principle.


167 posted on 03/10/2006 6:51:46 PM PST by Soul Seeker (House Republicans Send a message: All Arabs are Genetically pre-disposed to terrorism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker
What a shocker this would be if you didn't...vote...for them. And what a fitting retribution this bunch in D.C. deserves.

It's not just votes they will need to make up...it's contributions and volunteer time. These folks seem to think that they built on their majority in the House and regained and then added to their majority in the Senate because of their well articulated message and charming group of messengers. We will see how effective they are without the President and his team in the lead.

168 posted on 03/10/2006 6:57:08 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker

I am as disgusted as you are...glad to see I am not alone.

I saw on another thread that Frist is thinking about a "nuke option" to keep the dems from having an investigation of the NSA program...but, Frist is one of the least trustworthy..IMHO...NOT because he lies necessarily...but because he is ineffective.

BTW....the Congressweinies deprived those of us that WANTED to hear the review of the Dubai deal a chance...they demanded that Bush give them the 45 days...and when he did, they waited 6 whole days before they USED our troops by putting the amendment in the Supplemental Military bill, trying to pay Bush back by humiliating him...

I can't name ANY Congressweinie that I have respect for right now...

Granddaughter bugging me...may post more later.


169 posted on 03/10/2006 6:57:31 PM PST by Txsleuth (Bush-Bot;WaterBucket Brigader;and fan of defconw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Luke21
Most of these same folks wanted Miers on the Supreme Court.

All I ( and most everyone else around here) wanted was for Miers to get a chance to make the rounds of the senators and prove her worth (or lack thereof) without being called an imbecile, the "cleaning woman", etc. She proved to be unworthy and withdrew her name; IOW, the system worked, and it would have worked without all of the nasty personal attacks and the accusations that Bush was a sell out and a traitor.

It's funny how all of you people that call everyone that doesn't want to drag Bush out of the White House and string him up from a lamppost a "Bushbot", keep going back to Miers over and over and over again. She's didn't belong on the Supreme Court and she isn't on it, so give it a rest. Bush screwed up, fixed his mistake and moved on. Maybe you should too.

It's also funny that most of you people were the ones calling John Roberts the next David Souter, just because your idols Pat Buchanan, Joe Farah, Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter said so. And now that Roberts has already started to move the court significantly to the right, I don't hear any of you saying that maybe you were wrong about him.

And if you really think that it's a great idea for the Congress to keep grandstanding over this dead, dead, dead ports deal and to keep unnecessarily weakening Bush and driving the wedge between the US and the UAE deeper and deeper, while a war's going on, then you're insane. Do we have to be like the Dims now and not know when to say enough is enough?

170 posted on 03/10/2006 7:15:41 PM PST by CFC__VRWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Bubbatuck; Victoria Delsoul
If Congress wants to prohibit foreign ownership of companies with operating agreements with U.S. ports, then that would be fine. But they can't do that, because most U.S. ports would have to shut down tomorrow while new operators are found.

So Congress put itself in the bizarre position of passing a bill that prohibits this foreign company from having any operating agreements with U.S. ports -- despite the fact that countries like China and Saudi Arabia have operated ports in the U.S. for years.

A law like this that is aimed at restricting a specific entity is known as a "bill of attainder," and is explicitly prohibited under Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." -- James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788

Good heavens -- I can't imagine what James Madison would think of what has become of our U.S. Congress these days.

171 posted on 03/10/2006 7:16:52 PM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
The republicans piling it on the President will only serve to weaken his office for the next three years. Not a very wise move considering that we are in a War and need to keep the loony left, hate America, feel their pain, lets get along, surrender monkeys from taking power. The problem is that these republicans that have been elected to govern don't know how to lead and choose rather to dilute their power by making deals with Teddy Kennedy and his fellow travelers. If republican member of Congress think that a weaken executive is what they need now, they have lost their minds and deserve to lose this Nov.
172 posted on 03/10/2006 7:20:40 PM PST by Keflavik76 (No Tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
My favorite part is that they are trying to distance themselves from the President...as if they have a list of noteworthy achievements that weren't initiated by the White House. Let them run on their own stellar record.

Isn't that the most hysterical part?

The President GAVE them the Majority by giving them a message and favorable accomplishments to run on that the people could vote FOR absent the Dems message of "I hate Bush". Absent him why should I vote for them? What accomplishment, oh, other than saving us from a certain nuke attack through our ports....do they have to crow about?

Oh, I know! Baseball might have a steroid investigation! Well Done pols, excellent platform to run on! I'm sure the people will be duly impressed at home. [sarcasm] Oh, and then there are higher gas prices because our pols have protected our union and enviro whacko interests so well here at home...Who needs ANWR and energy independence from those "evil Arabs" anyway?

These folks seem to think that they built on their majority in the House and regained and then added to their majority in the Senate because of their well articulated message and charming group of messengers.

If I were a Republican I'd be filing for a divorce after this. Thankfully, I'm not. But this Indy, yeah, that Indy they all drool over in polls...is gone. I think it would do the Republicans a damn sight of good to realize they aren't entitled to power anymore than the Dems are. I live in a Liberal leaning state by a couple millions votes. I lived through the Clinton years. I know pain. I can survive the fallout from a Liberal elective year.

Like I've been saying, all those folks that advocated for this? I hope the Reps can count on their votes and activism. 'Cause I'm spending MY vacation on something more pleasurable than GOTV this November.

173 posted on 03/10/2006 7:20:56 PM PST by Soul Seeker (House Republicans Send a message: All Arabs are Genetically pre-disposed to terrorism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: AmeriBrit

*You* poseted to *me*, not the other way around. If you want to be taken seriously, cut the histrionics.


174 posted on 03/10/2006 7:21:07 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

Funny thing is that Frist actually managed his caucus better than the newly Minted guy National Review and other "pure and wise" conservatives decided was better than Delay. He got his group to agree to 45 days of discussion and review. How sad is it that the Senate is now more mature than the House?

yes, there are many angles to despise Congress on these days.

Deliciously, in retribution, they'll get exactly what they thought they staved off by acting this way. They'll lose election. And their ratings will be in the tank. because the dimwits don't realize their futures are connected to Bush, and now they've disengaged from him.

The result is that people will view them each separately. These will not be national themed elections. Each will be judged apart. And what do people see? Republicans that stand on the platform "At least we're not Democrats" and flutter about in paranoia of losing office. they think this will help them in Nov.?

They have no vision. No principle. No maturity. they've demonstrated they are inept at leadership. They are now as rudderless as the Dems are.


175 posted on 03/10/2006 7:28:55 PM PST by Soul Seeker (House Republicans Send a message: All Arabs are Genetically pre-disposed to terrorism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Outstanding post, AC.


176 posted on 03/10/2006 7:33:54 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: AmeriBrit

the UAE is not going to stop us from using their port.
They make umpteen millions off of that deal. Things will continue on just as they are, and we will continue our trade of 8+ billion per year with them.


177 posted on 03/10/2006 7:37:10 PM PST by FBD (surf's up....way up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul

Wow -- thanks!


178 posted on 03/10/2006 7:38:11 PM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911
My biggest concern is our troops welfare in the WOT

Then you must be concerned about the welfare of the people supporting our troops at home. Why should we put all our military power protecting some other countries borders, then sell our sensitive coastal facilities to others? Why should a foreign entity have power over the supplies those troops require to do their jobs when they load and unload our ships? The ports "reinvented" by the Clinton administration went from American possessions to become possessions of foreign agents. In what war have we EVER given control of sensitive coastal facilities to ANY FOREIGN AGENT? Why do you say it is OK to do this now, when it has NEVER BEEN OK in the history of the United States, until the "free traitors" infiltrated our government?
179 posted on 03/10/2006 7:42:48 PM PST by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I can't imagine what James Madison would think of what has become of our U.S. Congress these days.

I can, and it's not pretty.

Hadn't picked up on the bill of attainder angle. See http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/sbcvfcc/Default.htm for a good example.

There is no doubt some space between that case, and being listed as a terrorist organization being subject to seizure of assets. Those folks are definitely SINGLED OUT, and yet there is no bill of attainder argument for them.

180 posted on 03/10/2006 7:46:33 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-286 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson