Congress declares war on ports deal

[TraumaRN]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/08/port.security/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress sent its first shot across President Bush's bow Wednesday, as the House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 to block a controversial deal that would allow Dubai Ports World to operate some terminals at U.S. ports.

The amendment was inserted into an emergency supplemental funding bill for military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also includes about $19 billion in disaster assistance for the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

I think Congress has just laid the law(no pun) down for the Bush admin basically saying you veto this you are vetoing funds to Iraq and Katrina. I must say politicians can be real ba$tards sometimes. This would be a perfect example.

 

[jimkyser]

The question now is, assuming the senate follows suit and overwhelmingly adds the same language to their version of the bill, does Bush have the cahones to stand up to congress and veto the bill despite overwhelming opposition. I think no.

 

[GeNome]

I think I am justified in saying w00t for Congress..at least this time.

 

[OrByte]

congress wants to take a stand on this ports issue but it rolls over when it comes to the wiretapping and illegal spying issue.

go figure.

 

[Pens1566]

This should be fun.

 

[randym431]

Well if you listened to Al Franken Show, you'd know this is just a "face saver" for the republicans up for re election. They have seen the polls over this port issue, and thought they'd try to cash in on it. No democrats are saying the port sale should not go thru, they are just saying it was an under the table deal and only want the 45 day exam of the sale before it goes thru, as the law requires. Just look at whos heading the port deal war in congress, then you'll understand whats going on here.

 

[ntdz]

I don't know why this ports deal is such a big deal, they aren't turning security over to the company as well...I can see why people are opposed to it (on both sides), I just think it's being overplayed. I partly agree with Franken about Republicans opposing it in the runup to the elections.

 

[Azelrok]

I live very close to one of the controversial port area and, boy is everyone in steams about this port deal. Me personally, I dont see the big deal. When only 5% of the cargo being shipped in the US is being checked now, whats the big deal if it goes down to 0%?


Americans should take a stand, if this port deal goes through, people should just sabotage Dubai's ships, make it so they dont want any part of America.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: OrByte
congress wants to take a stand on this ports issue but it rolls over when it comes to the wiretapping and illegal spying issue.

go figure.

Or actually funding port security...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't know why this ports deal is such a big deal, they aren't turning security over to the company as well...I can see why people are opposed to it (on both sides), I just think it's being overplayed. I partly agree with Franken about Republicans opposing it in the runup to the elections.

Source? As far as I know, the orginal workers stay. All they do is change there badges to a different company.

 

[theeedude]

Does anyone really believe the GOP congressmen are really standing up to Bush? It's just an election year hat trick, if they are reelected they'll roll over and play dead again.

 

[arsbanned]

This is just election year posturing on the part of the Republicans.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Azelrok

Americans should take a stand, if this port deal goes through, people should just sabotage Dubai's ships, make it so they dont want any part of America.

And in turn, we will lose the naval ports they allow our military to use, and we will lose one of our best Arab allies in the middle east. Yeah. Let's do it.

 

[conehead433]

Although this deal doesn't turn security of the managed ports over it does turn management over to not just a foreign company but to a foreign nation. If you don't see a problem with that you need glasses.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Although this deal doesn't turn security of the managed ports over it does turn management over to not just a foreign company but to a foreign nation. If you don't see a problem with that you need glasses.

Exactly. Think maybe that management might be informed of, oh I don't know, minute details about the security at those ports? Jesus H Christ, this administration has based its whole existence on fear of the terrist boogeyman getting us, and now they wonder why people might be upset about one of the boogeyman's native countries running 6 of our biggest ports? I guess they can have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Duckzilla]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Azelrok

Americans should take a stand, if this port deal goes through, people should just sabotage Dubai's ships, make it so they dont want any part of America.

And in turn, we will lose the naval ports they allow our military to use, and we will lose one of our best Arab allies in the middle east. Yeah. Let's do it.

Admit it, 911 didn't have much of an impact on you, did it? Let's be honest.

 

[conjur]

Dubai Royal Family throws temper tantrum in response


:roll:

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't know why this ports deal is such a big deal, they aren't turning security over to the company as well...I can see why people are opposed to it (on both sides), I just think it's being overplayed. I partly agree with Franken about Republicans opposing it in the runup to the elections.

Here is the reason. The law, and security people who stem from it, assume they are working in an enviroment where most of the working people are on their side, they are designed to find the exceptions, not monitor everyone.

In an area where security is very important, like ports, it makes sense if the workers and owners can be assumed to have the USA's people and government, first in their hearts. Then the security forces can concentrate on the exceptions.

At least to me this makes sense.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't know why this ports deal is such a big deal, they aren't turning security over to the company as well...I can see why people are opposed to it (on both sides), I just think it's being overplayed. I partly agree with Franken about Republicans opposing it in the runup to the elections.

Can you honestly say that in all possible cases, that UAE control is the best possible situation? Are you confident that no one else can do it better? If not, why settle for something that isn't in our best interests? I apply this logic to all similar deals.

 

[Genx87]

I think it is funny the talk about wanting to hold hearings on the matter for 45 days are being shown as nothing but a political stunt by both parties.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think it is funny the talk about wanting to hold hearings on the matter for 45 days are being shown as nothing but a political stunt by both parties.

When aren't things like this political stunts?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think it is funny the talk about wanting to hold hearings on the matter for 45 days are being shown as nothing but a political stunt by both parties.

When aren't things like this political stunts?

I agree with GenX's assessments in this thread. I do find the irony completely hilarious re:Bush administration's reactions.

They pound fear, terror and 9/11 down our throats every chance they get to promote their agenda and now, when it is being used against their agenda, they are trying to reassure us that there isn't anything to worry about.....classic!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think it is funny the talk about wanting to hold hearings on the matter for 45 days are being shown as nothing but a political stunt by both parties.

When aren't things like this political stunts?

Tis true

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: conehead433
Although this deal doesn't turn security of the managed ports over it does turn management over to not just a foreign company but to a foreign nation. If you don't see a problem with that you need glasses.

Exactly. Think maybe that management might be informed of, oh I don't know, minute details about the security at those ports? Jesus H Christ, this administration has based its whole existence on fear of the terrist boogeyman getting us, and now they wonder why people might be upset about one of the boogeyman's native countries running 6 of our biggest ports? I guess they can have their cake and eat it too.

I assume both of you were protesting and sending letters to your reps when the british controlled the ports? This is capitalism, it is what the United States stands for. British, UAE, China, hell even France, they buy ports because shipping is big business.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: conehead433
Although this deal doesn't turn security of the managed ports over it does turn management over to not just a foreign company but to a foreign nation. If you don't see a problem with that you need glasses.

Exactly. Think maybe that management might be informed of, oh I don't know, minute details about the security at those ports? Jesus H Christ, this administration has based its whole existence on fear of the terrist boogeyman getting us, and now they wonder why people might be upset about one of the boogeyman's native countries running 6 of our biggest ports? I guess they can have their cake and eat it too.

I assume both of you were protesting and sending letters to your reps when the british controlled the ports? This is capitalism, it is what the United States stands for. British, UAE, China, hell even France, they buy ports because shipping is big business.

It is a fact that the USA has a special relationship with Britain(and her offshoots Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and France. For all the anti-French rhetoric over the years, the fact is we know what they did for us in our Revolutionary War, and they know what we did for them, in the World Wars. There's a reason why those fields of crosses and stars of David in Normandy are there.

These countries are our brothers; we like to pretend we are brothers with the rest of the world too, but sometimes we have to be realistic.