OGTEleven Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Let's say after further review of the UAE port deal that all currently concerned members of congress are truly satisfied by the data and feel the deal is good. Even if that came to pass (doubtful because the threshold is so high) is there any possible way they could let the deal go through? The way this thing has played out won't allow for that. Even if it turns out to be the ultimate business deal of all time I think it is dead politically already. Can any of you see it differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Let's say after further review of the UAE port deal that all currently concerned members of congress are truly satisfied by the data and feel the deal is good. Even if that came to pass (doubtful because the threshold is so high) is there any possible way they could let the deal go through? The way this thing has played out won't allow for that. Even if it turns out to be the ultimate business deal of all time I think it is dead politically already. Can any of you see it differently? 610362[/snapback] Can Congress (legally) stop it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 Can Congress (legally) stop it? 610366[/snapback] In a way. A whole bunch of congresspeople from each side screaming and yelling can cause it to be stopped. So they will have stopped it, and done nothing illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Let's say after further review of the UAE port deal that all currently concerned members of congress are truly satisfied by the data and feel the deal is good. Even if that came to pass (doubtful because the threshold is so high) is there any possible way they could let the deal go through? The way this thing has played out won't allow for that. Even if it turns out to be the ultimate business deal of all time I think it is dead politically already. Can any of you see it differently? 610362[/snapback] It is as dead as my dream to one day become a judge....of the Miss Porn USA pageant. Seriously, I haven't the foggiest idea as to what economic and security issues are at stake here. Politically though, if you have Charles Schumer and Bill Frist both against it and a lame duck Prez who is getting lamer by the second, where else can this possibly go but into the "nevermind" bin? The administration has bigger fish to fry so they are not going to hitch their wagons to this lead balloon. There, I think I set the record for the multiple mixing of hackneyed metaphors in one sentence. Top that amigo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Even if this deal was determined to be perfectly ok and it does not compromise our National Security, would the mainstream media get that message out to the public? Doubt it. Most of the media, no matter what side as an agenda. And more of that agenda now is to bring down the administration. You actually think the New York Times for example would ever paint this issue very positive even if it was found that this deal is completely positive. Yeah, and I'm the Pope. I am not ra-ra Bush or totally anti-Bush, just calling it like I see it. Personally, I do not not know enough about this entire situation yet to formulate an opinion either way. On the surface, I am against it. The Administration should have handled this differently and more effectively, no questions asked. Here is another angle, and forgive me if this has been brought up a thousand times already, if the United States rejects this, what message does that send to the Middle East in general? I am sure they will take it as we will never ever trust them, and would it make matters worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 In a way. A whole bunch of congresspeople from each side screaming and yelling can cause it to be stopped. So they will have stopped it, and done nothing illegal. 610394[/snapback] Let's look at this from a purely business transaction. We entered into a contract with P&O to operate six of our ports. Dubai World purchases P&O, thereby now owning the contract. Congresscritters want to break the contract because they hate Arabs. Now, how fast would the ACLU and every ambulance-chasing lawyer be all over this if it were the following: two companies (owned by whites) enter into a contract. Another company (owned by blacks) purchases one of the companies owned by whites. The second company owned by whites wants to break the contract because they do not like blacks (you know, they are all criminals ). Revs Al and Jessie would be screaming (and rightfully so in this case) about racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I say the "deal" goes through. BTW, what deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Here is another angle, and forgive me if this has been brought up a thousand times already, if the United States rejects this, what message does that send to the Middle East in general? I am sure they will take it as we will never ever trust them, and would it make matters worse? 610402[/snapback] It sends a bad one. This is a business transaction between two foreign companies. The uproar is nothing more than xenophobia, validating the things Arabs have been saying for a while now. Honestly, I imagine (it is probably happening, I have not read the Arab press recently) that this situation is being used to recruit more people to extremist activities. Thanks Congresscritters and U.S. media. Bush is now in a tough situation. He wants this deal to go through. This would do a lot to help the U.S. image in the Arab world. Congress and the media want this stopped because they hate Arabs. Bush can't win on this. If he gives in, the Arab world will be pissed. If he doesn't, then it is a political nightmare at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 It is as dead as my dream to one day become a judge....of the Miss Porn USA pageant. Seriously, I haven't the foggiest idea as to what economic and security issues are at stake here. Politically though, if you have Charles Schumer and Bill Frist both against it and a lame duck Prez who is getting lamer by the second, where else can this possibly go but into the "nevermind" bin? The administration has bigger fish to fry so they are not going to hitch their wagons to this lead balloon. There, I think I set the record for the multiple mixing of hackneyed metaphors in one sentence. Top that amigo. 610395[/snapback] Again this whole thing is beyond stupid. Do you and everyone release that these ports are already controlled by a foreign owned company? I put this in the congress needs to shutup bin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Can Congress (legally) stop it? 610366[/snapback] I believe they can stop it, and at least delay it under the arguement that the Administration did not follow the 45 day protocol. However, they would have to pass a disapproval resolution that is binding and then override a Presidential veto. I am not sure if they can be stopped it permanently, but they may be able to with a properly constructed resolution that both the House and Senate can agree to?! If it gets that far, it will be politically untenable for all sides. Talk about hyperbol out of Washington, you wait. And on this issue, there will be many strange bedfellows. I am betting Hastert folds and joins Bush, Frist is in the next Presidential race and is unlikely to back down now that his position is staked out. Hastert just sounded the least committed to opposing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I am betting Hastert folds and joins Bush, Frist is in the next Presidential race and is unlikely to back down now that his position is staked out. Hastert just sounded the least committed to opposing this. 610415[/snapback] Frist doesn't stand a chance in the primaries. He has been way too weak. He can't even keep his party together on issues like judicial nominations. Too little...too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I'd be willing to bet that there are people on both sides who maybe now wished they had kept their mouths shut. Especially those with presidential aspirations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I believe they can stop it, and at least delay it under the arguement that the Administration did not follow the 45 day protocol. However, they would have to pass a disapproval resolution that is binding and then override a Presidential veto. I am not sure if they can be stopped it permanently, but they may be able to with a properly constructed resolution that both the House and Senate can agree to?! 610415[/snapback] I am still having trouble grasping how the U.S. has any jurisdiction over a foreign business transaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I am still having trouble grasping how the U.S. has any jurisdiction over a foreign business transaction. 610423[/snapback] But the transaction involves sand !@#$s! Don't you get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I believe they can stop it, and at least delay it under the arguement that the Administration did not follow the 45 day protocol. 610415[/snapback] That is another thing that burns me up about this. Clinton and Levin are complaining (saying that laws were broken) that the government reviewed this in 30 days, instead of dragging it out to the full 45 days. Doesn't the rule state that it can take no longer than 45 days? Here is what I know about the statute (Exon-Florio Provision): -It involves Section 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 -An investigation, if necessary, must begin no later than 30 days after receipt of a notice. -Any investigation is required to end within 45 days. Clinton and Levin say that the law was broken because the committee did not drag things out for the full 45 days. They don't have to drag it out 45 days. They need to finish their investigation in less than 45 days. Unless I am missing something, Clinton and Levin have no idea what they are talking about (not that this is anything new). Also, this provision only applies to foreign companies purchasing American companies. That is not the case here. It is a foreign company purchasing another foreign company. I guess they are trying to tie this to the Byrd Amendment: " the acquisition 'could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S.'" Still, my point is that Clinton and Levin are talking out their azzes, if I understand things correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 But the transaction involves sand !@#$s! Don't you get it? 610426[/snapback] Minus the n word, the fact that too many of these Arab monarchs talk out both sides of their mouths, why should we be giving any of them an investment opportunity as they look the other way with potential terrorists operating under their noses. Two already had UAE visas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 But the transaction involves sand !@#$s! Don't you get it? 610426[/snapback] Which is still, basically, the crux of every argument against it. And when that doesn't work they go to the "Why didn't we use all 45 days????" argument that KRC just mentioned - as if to say there's no way the government reviewed this correctly unless they used the maximum amount of time. Either way, as long as we can keep those camel jockeys out of our country..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Two already had UAE visas. 610450[/snapback] Timothy McVeigh was an American. People are dead due to his terrorist actions. Therefore, no American company should be allowed to run our ports (for security reasons). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Which is still, basically, the crux of every argument against it. And when that doesn't work they go to the "Why didn't we use all 45 days????" argument that KRC just mentioned - as if to say there's no way the government reviewed this correctly unless they used the maximum amount of time. 610456[/snapback] How dare the government be too efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Timothy McVeigh was an American. People are dead due to his terrorist actions. Therefore, no American company should be allowed to run our ports (for security reasons). 610464[/snapback] Well, if you were to look at the number of attacks by americans (like mcveigh) and the ragheads, I think the statistics would probably say its more likely to come from them (ragheads) next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts