We all know here how the Shin Corp deal was the last straw for many Thais and how they took it to the streets.

Will Bush suffer from the same syndrome ? losing an unpopular war, opening the frontiers to illegal immigrants and now to potential terrorists ?

House Committee Passes Measure To Kill Ports Deal

This doesn't smell good

Source: The WSJ (a famous pinko liberal news source)

House Committee Passes Measure To Kill Ports Deal

Bush Faces Limited Options

As Lawmakers Respond

To Growing Public Outcry

By GREG HITT and GREG JAFFE

March 9, 2006; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- In a bold rebuke of President Bush, Republicans in Congress joined Democrats in taking the first significant step to reverse a Dubai company's takeover of management of operations at five U.S. ports, putting White House efforts to rescue the deal in serious jeopardy.

The move suggests the president may face two unattractive options: using a veto to try to keep Congress from killing the transaction -- and provoking a showdown with significant parts of his own party -- or accepting a face-saving compromise that would be a retreat from his free-trade, pro-business principles.

Late yesterday, the influential House Appropriations Committee, moving with the blessing of the Republican leadership, voted 62 to 2 to approve an amendment intended to unwind the U.S. portion of Dubai Ports World's $6.8 billion purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. The takeover, previously cleared by the administration, formally closed yesterday.

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any prior action," the measure says, the acquisition by DP World of P&O's U.S. facilities "is hereby prohibited and shall have no effect." The legislation, attached to a $91.1 billion spending bill funding U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and hurricane relief in the Gulf Coast, is expected to reach the full House next week, in action likely to dramatize the widening divide between Mr. Bush and Republican leaders in Congress.

WALL STREET JOURNAL VIDEO

WSJ's Gerald Seib discusses the Republican backlash at President Bush's support of a Dubai-owned company's entry into U.S. port operations.The amendment, sponsored by Chairman Jerry Lewis, a California Republican, doesn't describe how the mandate would be enforced. Lawmakers have been unclear over how they would force the unwinding of a deal that the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States previously approved.

But if the language becomes law, the onus would be on the administration to enforce it, presumably by forcing DP World to divest itself of control of commercial terminal operations at major U.S. ports in Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and New York and Newark, N.J.

In the Senate, New York Democrat Charles Schumer yesterday offered a similar amendment. That could make it tougher for the administration to navigate the usually more cool-headed body and slow opposition to the deal.

The White House had hoped to cool political passions on the issue by agreeing 10 days ago to launch a 45-day investigation of the national-security implications of the deal. But opposition has only intensified, fanned by voter concerns about security and the president's own political vulnerability, despite DP World's promise to segregate management of the U.S. facilities and White House assurances that port security is handled by U.S. law-enforcement officers -- not port managers.

Lawmakers report strong pressure from voters opposed to giving a Middle East firm a management role at ports amid heightened terrorism fears.

"My phones are ringing off the hook every day," said Ohio Rep. Deborah Pryce, the fourth-ranking House Republican. She said calls to her office have run 100-to-1 against the deal. "There's a strong feeling this was mishandled from the beginning," she said.

Increasingly, Mr. Bush appears to be the last line of defense in Washington for the company, which is owned by the government of Dubai, one of seven Persian Gulf emirates that comprise the United Arab Emirates. A DP spokesman declined to comment on the maneuvers.

The president has promised to veto any bill that tries to undermine DP World, and the White House made clear the threat still stands. "The president's position is unchanged," said spokesman Scott McClellan. He said the White House is working with Congress to defuse the issue, adding, "We recognize the concerns that are there."

But lawmakers are making it hard for Mr. Bush to stop a measure unwinding the deal, both by attaching it to legislation the president badly wants to sign and by trying to muster the votes showing they could override a veto.

DP World has hired a team of high-priced lobbyists to argue its case on Capitol Hill. If Congress succeeds in passing legislation, the company could challenge it in court. But that prospect is far down the road, and the more immediate focus is on the evolving legislative battle.

In the end, the president's best option might be seeking a compromise that restricts the deal without killing it. One possibility, suggested by Rep. Mike Oxley, an Ohio Republican, could be creating a "firewall" between DP World and the U.S. operations. A similar model has sometimes been used in defense-industry acquisitions involving foreign companies, in which a separate, all-U.S. board is established to oversee U.S. assets while profits remain on the foreign company's books.

In an interview, Rep. Oxley said he's working on an evolving amendment to preserve the deal with changes. He also expressed frustration at what he portrayed as a rush to judgment. "Congress does two things well: nothing and overreacting," he said. "We're into phase two."

One likely reason for the fierce resistance is the president's low standing in public-opinion polling, which has made Republicans more willing to oppose him. The restiveness has grown since the White House's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina last year. Rank-and-file Republicans also undermined the failed nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and forced Mr. Bush to accept new restraints on law enforcement as part of legislation renewing the Patriot Act.

Some party allies suggest unease also is spreading among the grass-roots activists whose support has been particularly vital to the president. That is potentially perilous for the party in this year's elections, since overall voter turnout generally is low in midterm years.

"It's just not working," said conservative activist Richard A. Viguerie. "People are really unhappy." Noting Republican candidates historically have paid "a dear price" when their base is uneasy, he said, "That's looming large on the horizon, and they're not sure what they can do about it."

All the same, Republicans still need Mr. Bush's help in raising money. Even as Congress tackles the ports deal next week, the president is expected to headline a gala dinner raising more than $7 million for the 2006 Republican fight to retain control of the House. The dinner's planned theme: United to Victory.

Among other objections, critics have seized on the U.A.E.'s past recognition of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a regime that once harbored Osama bin Laden and gave haven to al Qaeda training camps before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

But, as the administration has pointed out, the U.A.E. has become a close ally of the U.S. since Sept. 11. In a show of trust, the U.S. has allowed the U.A.E. to go forward with plans to purchase several dozen of the military's most advanced F-16 fighter jets.

Administration aides fear that the deal's reversal in the U.S. could have a chilling effect on the willingness of foreign firms and individuals to invest their money in the U.S. They say they also worry about the potential for a popular backlash against the U.S., which could erode what the Pentagon considers valuable defense cooperation.

In recent years, the U.S. military has become more reliant on the U.A.E. for operations in the Middle East, particularly as the U.S. Air Force has pulled virtually all of its people and aircraft from what had been its primary air hub in Saudi Arabia.

An Air Force spokeswoman declined to talk about air operations in the Emirates, citing local sensitivities and Air Force policy not to talk about its operations in that country. Defense officials, however, say that the military uses bases in the U.A.E. as a logistics hub to supply troops in the region and frequently flies in C-130 cargo aircraft. In the past, the U.S. has flown some surveillance and refueling aircraft out of the U.A.E. airfields.

If the U.S. were to lose access to those airfields it wouldn't have a big effect on military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. But if the U.S. pursued a large-scale assault in Iran or elsewhere in the region, good relations with the U.A.E. -- and access to U.A.E. airfields -- would be essential.

In the event of a conflict with Iran, moreover, keeping shipping lanes open through the Persian Gulf would be a top priority. "Dubai and the Emirates is the keystone in the Gulf when it comes to ensuring the security of oil reserves," said Daniel Goure, a vice president at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

The Pentagon also depends heavily on the U.A.E.'s deep-water port at Jebel Ali Port in Dubai. Currently the facility is the only one in the region where the U.S. can pull up one of its massive aircraft carriers to the pier, allowing the Navy to do deeper maintenance than it might be able to do at sea. U.S. officials also point out that two U.A.E. ports, including the DP World-administered Jebel Ali Port in Dubai, host more U.S. naval visits than any other port outside of the U.S.

Time to get back to serious topics. Enough playing with the flying circus monkeys.

You have to understand a little bit about ports and port ownership first. There are already foreign owned ports in the USA.

Butterfly........still lost in those far-left fever swamps.

Chuchok - right on.

You have to understand a little bit about ports and port ownership first. There are already foreign owned ports in the USA.

I agree and I know that. But also the concerns of the US public is still valid. Dubai money had sponsored terrorism in the past (and maybe still does now). Is that how you "reward" terrorism ?

Not a big deal, over reaction if you ask me. Foreign ownership of ports means little, security/guidance is handled by HPD and Coast Guard, regardless of who owns it. Ports were managed we British prior so what difference does it make now?

Lost a foreign war? What planet are you on mate?

You have to understand a little bit about ports and port ownership first. There are already foreign owned ports in the USA.

I agree and I know that. But also the concerns of the US public is still valid. Dubai money had sponsored terrorism in the past (and maybe still does now). Is that how you "reward" terrorism ?

Well, my understanding is that Chinese state companies have the same kind of control over ports on the West Coast (like LA).

I guess the Chinese Communist government has never sponsored any terrorism ?

You have to understand a little bit about ports and port ownership first. There are already foreign owned ports in the USA.

I agree and I know that. But also the concerns of the US public is still valid. Dubai money had sponsored terrorism in the past (and maybe still does now). Is that how you "reward" terrorism ?

Well, my understanding is that Chinese state companies have the same kind of control over ports on the West Coast (like LA).

I guess the Chinese Communist government has never sponsored any terrorism ?

China state sponsoring terrorism ?

please develop I am not sure I am following you ?

Lost a foreign war? What planet are you on mate?

I am on the one that doesn't agree with this picture

I am not expecting you to understand my point

Butterfy don't you have anything better to do then harp on the negative? The majority of the country is doing quite well, however you would like to ignore that fact.

You have to understand a little bit about ports and port ownership first. There are already foreign owned ports in the USA.

I agree and I know that. But also the concerns of the US public is still valid. Dubai money had sponsored terrorism in the past (and maybe still does now). Is that how you "reward" terrorism ?

Well, my understanding is that Chinese state companies have the same kind of control over ports on the West Coast (like LA).

I guess the Chinese Communist government has never sponsored any terrorism ?

APM Terminals are Danish owned and control a heap of terminals in the USA.ATM

Hutchison-whampoa control the Panama canal . They are Chinese owned and the largest Port Operator in the world.hutchison-whampoa .. the also own the biggest ports in the UK,Thailand,Holland and China.

American President line (APL) are owned by the neptune Orient lines (Singapore Government) They also control a terminal in Seattle. (I think! )

Individual Port profitability, while being a consideration does not really enter the picture.What these guys want is to own as many overseas ports as possible.They are then able to tie in the shipping line with "global deals" and shut out locally owned ports/operators. This is what they do.

To pass a law to stop the Dubai ownership is a joke.If memory serves me correctly, the Dubai ports are managed by Yanks/Brits.

BTW, The two big cheeses in Hutchison are a Kiwi and an Australian

Butterfy don't you have anything better to do then harp on the negative? The majority of the country is doing quite well, however you would like to ignore that fact.

The defeatists and Nattering Nabobs of Negativism have a big stake in Iraq failing, Brit.

They want to prove it's another Viet Nam and America is a toothless has-been so they always look at the glass as half-empty or worse...

Butterfy don't you have anything better to do then harp on the negative? The majority of the country is doing quite well, however you would like to ignore that fact.

The defeatists and Nattering Nabobs of Negativism have a big stake in Iraq failing, Brit.

They want to prove it's another Viet Nam and America is a toothless has-been so they always look at the glass as half-empty or worse...

I think the glass is broken Boon Mee, no point at looking at it half empty

I guess you will take the war on Iraq being a failure when US troops leave next year ala Saigon ? what would it take for you to realize it was a big mistake in the first place ?

Dubai company moves to end furore over US ports deal

10.03.06 1.00pm

WASHINGTON - The state-owned Arab company Dubai Ports World pledged today to transfer operation of six US port terminals to a US entity, a move a Bush administration official said should settle a political firestorm surrounding the deal.

Many lawmakers had demanded that the Dubai company be stopped from running the ports because of potential security risks, setting up a confrontation with President George W. Bush, who had strongly favoured the company's involvement.

"I'm told it will be a complete sale and if that's the case, I can't imagine it not answering the problem," the senior Bush administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A statement by Dubai Ports World's chief operating officer, Edward Bilkey, said the company had decided to "transfer fully ... to a US entity" the operation of North American ports terminals it had acquired from British-based P&O.

In Dubai, sources close to the deal said the United Arab Emirates government had intervened to defuse the crisis.

"It is a political decision to ask Dubai Ports to defuse the situation. We have to help our friends. Our close ties with the United States are important," a UAE official told Reuters in Dubai on condition of anonymity.

The dispute, which played into American concerns about security since the Sept. 11 attacks, proved a political hot potato for Bush's Republicans seven months before elections in which Democrats hope to regain control of Congress.

In the US Senate, Republican leaders pulled legislation from floor discussion on Thursday rather than face a debate and possible vote on an amendment meant to halt DP World's takeover of the port terminal operations.

The Bush administration, which approved the DP World deal in January, had earlier sought to quell the outcry against the Arab company taking over the facilities by ordering a new review of the deal. But the political protests continued.

what would it take for you to realize it was a big mistake in the first place ?

Maybe if he woke up from a dream and realized that 9/11 had never happened!

what would it take for you to realize it was a big mistake in the first place ?

Maybe if he woke up from a dream and realized that 9/11 had never happened!

It's been coming for some time Ulysses G.

The Marine Barracks in Beriut.

The Acheles Lauro incident.

Kobar Towers in Kenya.

1st bombing of the World Trade Center in '93 and so on.

What soft-headed appeasing Moonbats seem to forget is their History.

Winston Churchill suscribed to 'Let's Roll' where as Chamberlin said "Let's Roll Over"...

what would it take for you to realize it was a big mistake in the first place ?

Maybe if he woke up from a dream and realized that 9/11 had never happened!

It's been coming for some time Ulysses G.

The Marine Barracks in Beriut.

The Acheles Lauro incident.

Kobar Towers in Kenya.

1st bombing of the World Trade Center in '93 and so on.

What soft-headed appeasing Moonbats seem to forget is their History.

Winston Churchill suscribed to 'Let's Roll' where as Chamberlin said "Let's Roll Over"...

Agreed.

Winston Churchill was part American.

Chamberlain was a poof!

Agreed.

Winston Churchill was part American.

Chamberlain was a poof!

The backbone must have come from his mother's side of the family, eh?

Have you seen Churchill, The Hollywood Years?

This brilliant documentary finally reveals the truth about Churchill, his American citizenship and how the Brits ended up on the winning side in World War II!

Have you seen Churchill, The Hollywood Years?

This brilliant documentary finally reveals the truth about Churchill, his American citizenship and how the Brits ended up on the winning side in World War II!

Yep...just don't bring up the subject - Battle of the Bulge though!

Have you seen Churchill, The Hollywood Years?

This brilliant documentary finally reveals the truth about Churchill, his American citizenship and how the Brits ended up on the winning side in World War II!

Just goes to prove the old saying that you can't chose your family!! Just remember, that yanks are basically a bunch of Europeans! Som nom na.

Winnie was about as American as French Champagne. Opps...shouldn't mention the french, after all they helped the American-English beat the English-English...

Opps...shouldn't mention the french, after all they helped the American-English beat the English-English...

I think that we paid them back!

Just remember, that yanks are basically a bunch of Europeans!

Don't tell that to my wife who's about to get her US Passport!

Opps...shouldn't mention the french, after all they helped the American-English beat the English-English...

I think that we paid them back!

By drinking their grog....

I am on the one that doesn't agree with this picture

I am not expecting you to understand my point

Wow Butterfly that holy mosque is devastated. What do you think would have happened if it had been one of the mosques where the murderers hide out? One of the mosques where the murderers store their explovsives and ammunition? Wow one of those mosques would have been blown sky high.

Jay Leno compared the decision to allow Dubai to control U.S. ports to putting "Bill Clinton in charge of a Hooters."

Either the US believes in Free Trade, or it does not.

Either the US believes in Free Trade, or it does not.

The USA PR machine was sadly lacking in this case.Has anybody pointed out to the numskulls that voted against this, that the Panama Canal is controlled by a Chinese company....or that there are many ports already under the controll of overseas companies.Don't know who you blame..Bush or the dumb buggers that voted against it or the media for not repotting the facts.

Either the US believes in Free Trade, or it does not.

humm, let me think about that

Could it be that "Free Markets" work only when you are sure to win ?