Bush threatens veto in ports row

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4737940.stm

US President George W Bush says he will veto any law blocking a deal giving an Arab company control of six US ports.
The threat came as Bill Frist, leader of the Republican Party in the Senate, said he would move a blocking law if the government did not delay the deal.

The issue has developed into a very serious political standoff between Mr Bush and senior Republicans, the BBC's Justin Webb reports.

The administration is to brief a Senate committee on the deal on Wednesday.

Administration officials will address an unusual session of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the planned takeover, which would put six of the largest ports in the hands of Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates
What is this row about exactly? Last time I looked, UAE wasn't on the list of the axis of evil , so why is there such a tremendous outcry about this? It's not as if DPW are going to be controlling the security at these ports is it?

Or did the constant and relentless bombardment of the American people through Fcux news , talk radio and the rest with "Everyone East of the Med is bad" finally backfire , and in spades?

I'm looking around various American fora/forii and there is a lot of anger here, and I don't think they get that UAE isn't actually fighting America at the moment.... 8O

Hang on, are the Maktoum (sic) family involved in DPW?

National Review does the headless chicken......
 
#2
Well, I'm in Dubai now. Politically, the country is an ally in everything and is home for (I think) the largest US airbase in the Gulf region (in Al Ain.. one of those invisible bases that everyone sees). Generally speaking, the older generations are strictly pro-European and anti-American but the younger ones don't give a cr@p what's going on.

I don't get what the row is all about, but who cares anyway?
 
#3
actually this was started by certain Democract Senators (hint, female, looking for a Prez slot) who reckon they needed to impress the home crowd.

The locals are amused by the recent postering but are confident the sale will go through. As someone has said, P&O is already of Foreign owned company (Or are we already the 51st state!)

(PtP, what's your excuse for being up so early 8O )
 
#4
Working PY - It's quiet , just the radio burbling in the background and compiling some code.

Just wondered why all of a sudden, there is a row over this, they certainly weren't jumping around when P+O were on the case.

Still Bellaciao are straight on the Bacofoil , and have linked all sorts of stuff, though they did miss the Knights Templar and the Greys this time ( but I think they got the illumin*ti in again) :D

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10550
 
#5
It is quite simple - the 9/11 terrorists mostly flew out of the UAE when they came to the US, and they got funds from Saudia Arabia via the UAE, the UAE did not co-operate as much as the Americans would have liked post 9/11 so therefore the UAE is a hot-bed of islamic terrorists. Rather than smuggling things into the country like everybody else does, the bacofoil crowd believes these terrorists are going to spend a few billion to buy the ports and use their ownership to compromise the security of the US by smuggling terrorist materiel into the country and covering their tracks by falsifying the security records / shipping manifests / security procedures.

As Chertoff said just because Richard Reid was British, that doesn't stop us from letting the British invest in the US.
 
#6
No, it's even simpler than that.

Arabs = Bad Guys.

Certain politicans are playing to their electorate. That can't really be that stupid can they?

At least Bush is being sensible about this.
 
#8
Was listening to the debate about this on a talk show here in Florida and the guy said that ALL the container ports in the states are foreign owned and that only 5% of said containers are checked. Seems to me that if the UAE or Saudia Arabia or Uncle Tom Cobbley had wanted to do harm via that medium then it would have already have happened. Security is and always will be the responsibility of the American authorities, principally the Coast Guard irrespective of who owns the firms. This is about politics.
 
#9
I had to read it half a dozen times.

If Bush HAD been sensible , and if Rove and the rest hadn't been banging the "All Arabs bad" drum for so long , then this would have passed with minor comment.

The problem is they haven't , and to the supporters of the Republican right , it looks like Bush sold out to the Ay-rabys.

He-he :)
 
#10
Capitalism and the free marked, the cornerstone of American democracy which they want to export the world over. Great isn't it, so long as they like you.
 
#11
Dogface said:
Ord_Sgt said:
Capitalism and the free marked, the cornerstone of American democracy which they want to export the world over. Great isn't it, so long as they like you.
Exactly as it should be. Interests are interests.
Basically the US says democracy is best, unless they don’t like who gets elected. Capitalism and the free market rule, but only if the US benefits. Freedom of choice for all, so long as the US benefits. I was thinking more hypocrisy. :wink:
 
#12
Radical_Dreamer said:
PassingBells said:
At least Bush is being sensible about this.

Am I the only one who finds this statement very frightening?
Its a percentage thing combined with the laws of probability. I refer you to the immortal Bob Newhart on his "infinite number of monkeys with typewriters" sketch. Statistically, within an infinite number of these primates, one would type the works of Shakespeare. The scenario was a huge warehouse where US academics were supervising an attempt. One such academic is heard to say "Hey, Bob, looks like we've got something here........'to be or not to be, that is the gezundenplatz'.......okay, maybe not".
 
#13
Mate don't get me wrong I'm all for self interest and I'm not deliberately trying to yank your chain but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck.

hy•poc•ri•sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

My emphasis.

If you need proof open a newspaper :wink:
 
#14
The problem is the Bushies tried to slip this by unnoticed. Now they will need to explain why this deal wont jeapordize national security. The dem's see this as an issue that they can use to improve their national security stature [which is very low]. They are whipping up fear to kill the deal. The deal is good from a foreign relations standpoint and port security will still be done by Custom's and the Coast Guard.
 
#15
They tried to slip it through unnoticed, because they knew what the reaction was likely to be from the GOP faithful T6.

Has anyone started following the money yet?
 
#16
On first hearing this story, i thought this was just a case of the dems (and some crazy republicans) were stirring up the sh1t for no apparent reason other than to raise thier 'national secutiry' credentials (and implying that it was bad to sell to them arabs).

However, after hearing Bush's speech on the matter, i feel he (and his administration) is pushing this through as a sort of sweetner for the UAE government. He emphasised that they were a close ally in the war on terror and what sort of sign would this send to the rest of the world if the US refused to allow a US company to be bought over by a foreign company.
 
#17
Agent_Smith said:
... what sort of sign would this send to the rest of the world if the US refused to allow a US company to be bought over by a foreign company.
Actually refused to allow US operations currently owned by a foreign company (P&O) to be bought by another foreign company.
 
#18
PassingBells said:
Agent_Smith said:
... what sort of sign would this send to the rest of the world if the US refused to allow a US company to be bought over by a foreign company.
Actually refused to allow US operations currently owned by a foreign company (P&O) to be bought by another foreign company.
I stand corrected. The point still stands... :D
 
#20
tomahawk6 said:
The problem is the Bushies tried to slip this by unnoticed. Now they will need to explain why this deal wont jeapordize national security. The dem's see this as an issue that they can use to improve their national security stature [which is very low]. They are whipping up fear to kill the deal. The deal is good from a foreign relations standpoint and port security will still be done by Custom's and the Coast Guard.
Why is it that the only Dems I see on TV going on about this are Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton?

It was Lindsay Graham (R-SC) who started the ball rolling on this, then Bill Fristand Dennis Hastert got in on the act and now in the past few hours even Tom DeLay has chimed in, opposing the plan- you can't blame the dems for this.

I almost p1ssed myself when I found out the the highest ranking supporter of the deal, outside the administration, was JIMMY CARTER.

Personally, I think it's a storm in a teacup- P&O has been a true multinational company for years (American CEO, Autralians and God knows who else on the board etc.). I don't think the new owners would want to see anything happen, they won't be directly responisble for day-to-day ops and, let's face it, its not as if security at US ports can get much sloppier than it already is.

I'm just enjoying watching Bush being hoisted on his own petard.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top