[odanny]

WTF is the matter with our government? This is an issue of national security, and our President is willing to prostitiute our security to some rich Arab country that does not even recognize Israel, always votes against the U.S. in the U.N., and was a financial center of the 9/11 plotters?

These people recognized the Taliban when hardly no one else did! Hello????

We need a new President.

WASHINGTON - In a congressional election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations. Democrats clamored for a vote in the Senate, too.

By 62-2, the House Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports. The landslide vote was the strongest signal yet that more than three weeks of White House efforts to stunt congressional opposition to the deal have not been successful.

Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress. But there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall's elections.

The White House said the president's position was unchanged. "This is a national security issue," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, the chairman of the House panel, adding that the legislation would "keep America's ports in American hands."

As the committee acted, Democrats on the other side of the Capitol maneuvered for a vote in the GOP-led Senate. Republican leaders are trying to block a vote on the ports deal through a procedural vote that could occur as early as Thursday. That tactic is likely to fail, which could prompt Republicans to pull a lobbying reform bill from the floor in order to avoid defeat on the ports measure.

"We believe an overwhelming majority will vote to end the deal," said Democrat Charles Schumer of New York, whose attempt to force the issue to the floor brought the Senate to a late-afternoon standstill.

Congressional supporters of the deal "are few and far between", conceded Sen. John Warner, R-Va., an administration supporter.

GOP Senate leaders hope to delay a quick showdown with Bush on the issue, but the House committee, led by members of Bush's own party, showed a willingness to defy him on a security issue in an age of terrorism. Raising the stakes, the panel attached the ports language to a must-pass $91 billion measure financing hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee was to approve the entire bill late Wednesday and the full House could consider that measure as early as next week.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the administration was concerned that attempts to address the DP World deal in that bill could delay money needed for U.S. troops and for hurricane victims on the Gulf Coast. "We are committed to open and sincere lines of communication and are eager to work with Congress," she said.

Congressional opponents of the deal hammered away at the security questions they said the ports deal raised. "One of the most vulnerable situations facing America is our ports of entry," said Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee. "Whoever's responsible for those ports of entry should be American."

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio., said allowing the DP World takeover to proceed — and ignoring the public outcry over it — would be irresponsible. "The American people elected us to do something when an issue like this comes up," she said.

Only Reps. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., and Jim Moran, D-Va., voted against the measure. "It is premature, we don't have enough information and ... it may turn out to be unnecessary," Moran said. Added Kolbe: "I just don't think this is the right thing to do."

Twice, anti-war protesters interrupted the committee meeting. They shouted: "this war is illegal," "stop funding this war," and "the blood is on your hands."

The House and Senate developments underscored the extent to which the politically charged issue has come to dominate the agenda in recent days, with Republicans and Democrats competing to demonstrate the strongest anti-terrorism credentials in the run-up to midterm elections.

Republicans worked to prevent a vote in the Senate as an aide to Majority Leader Bill Frist said the Tennessean warned Treasury Secretary John Snow "the president's position will be overrun by Congress" if the administration fails to aggressively and clearly communicate with lawmakers during a 45-day review of security implications.

The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private among Snow, Frist and several GOP committee chairmen. The Treasury Department oversees the multi-agency committee that initially approved the DP World takeover. Republicans said it was possible senators would pass a simple symbolic statement in coming weeks that would put the Senate's view of the takeover on record without interfering with it.

But by mid-afternoon Wednesday, with the Senate debating legislation to respond to a corruption scandal involving lobbyists, Democrats signaled they wouldn't be satisfied with a weak provision. Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters he was prepared to let the lobbying reform bill languish if necessary.

Senate Republicans accused Schumer of subterfuge in the way he sought to inject the issue into the debate, pointing to a letter earlier this month in which he and other Democrats said they would refrain from seeking immediate legislation.

Schumer and fellow Democrats brushed that aside, with Reid calling the maneuver "absolutely valid." The political context was unmistakable. Democrats circulated a pollster's memo claiming that recent events had "dramatically reduced" the GOP advantage on national security. Some GOP senators accused the House of acting prematurely because of the heat Republicans were taking from their constituents. "To kill the deal without a comprehensive solution to port security is just living for the political moment," said Lindsey Graham, R-S.C

On the House floor, Democrats failed for the second time in a week to force a debate and vote on separate legislation to block DP World's entry into U.S. port operations. In the committee, Republicans defeated a broader Democratic amendment that would have changed the process the United States uses to approve such foreign investments.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been assailing the Bush administration for approving DP World's purchase Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation, a British company that holds leases at several U.S. ports.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/ap_on_go_co/ports_security

[LoneJeeper]

i'll be honest. I doubt i'll read all that. I don't understand how we're incapable of operating our own friggin ports.

lj

[odanny]

Originally Posted by LoneJeeper

i'll be honest. I doubt i'll read all that. I don't understand how we're incapable of operating our own friggin ports.

lj

Voted 62-2 to keep from selling off these Eastern ports to the oversight of DPW(Dubai Ports World )

Only Reps. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., and Jim Moran, D-Va., voted against the measure.

(Short version)

[FreemasonJeeper]

It's good to see that the checks and balances still work. There goes the idea that all Republicans are lock step with the President. Even great men make mistakes.

[Grumman]

Like your avatar, . Didn't bother me so much about DPW owning them, cmon most of our ports are already "owned/operated" by foreign companies in many countries around the world. It wasnt the chance of the arabs owning them that got me really mad, It was the way Bush came out with it, saying that congress and the people could F*** themselves about it happening, is what got me really hot

BUT I must say GOOD JOB CONGRESS . Did something right for a change

Like the radio man said about it. "The people wag the tail, the tail doesnt wag the people"

[jbrem]

Originally Posted by RepublicanJeepr

It's good to see that the checks and balances still work. There goes the idea that all Republicans are lock step with the President. Even great men make mistakes.

Agreed...I voted for Bush, but I totally agree with congress on this one.

[Texan4life]

Now, if only congress could protect the rest of our borders half as much.....

[jeverett]

Originally Posted by LoneJeeper

i'll be honest. I doubt i'll read all that. I don't understand how we're incapable of operating our own friggin ports.

lj

because we have not run them for quite a while. Probably because all the damn unions made it not cost effective. But hey, lets just let a racist descision over rule standard buisnes practice that has never been questioned before even when we let the chinese take over the ones on the west coast.

But as I said, why let something common practice, the companies impeccable history of running ports world wide, and good buisness sense get in the way of rascist panic because they are arab. I am Proud to be an American right now. First we renew the patriot act so that we can ensure our citicens have even less rights, now we announce to the world that we are bigotted hypocryts

[odanny]

Originally Posted by jeverett

because we have not run them for quite a while. Probably because all the damn unions made it not cost effective. But hey, lets just let a racist descision over rule standard buisnes practice that has never been questioned before even when we let the chinese take over the ones on the west coast.

But as I said, why let something common practice, the companies impeccable history of running ports world wide, and good buisness sense get in the way of rascist panic because they are arab. I am Proud to be an American right now. First we renew the patriot act so that we can ensure our citicens have even less rights, now we announce to the world that we are bigotted hypocryts

[Grumman]

IT's DEAD

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8G896085.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db

[Achped]

Originally Posted by jbrem04

Agreed...I voted for Bush, but I totally agree with congress on this one.

Seconded. What's he thinking?

[JungleLarry]

You guys have no idea what is going on. UAE is about as much a threat to our security as Great Britain is. You guys didn't forget that the British once burned down our White House, did you? And yet, they still own our ports after the history we've had with them.

The company that bought the ports has an impecable security record, lacking any sort of mistakes or blemishes. The country is also intensely modernized and EXTREMELY wealthy. They're not your average run-of-the-mill Arab nation. It's not like we're handing our ports over to the Taliban. But most Americans are too simple-minded to look past a person's nationality and give them the benefit of the doubt. If a bomb exploded at one of these ports while it was held by the UAE, trust me when I say there would be a big price to pay...and that's a risk they're not willing to make.

ALSO - they don't even CARE about American ports. When they bought the British company they were after the more lucrative Chinese and Indian ports, not ones in the United States. Once again...American ego.

This deal was about money, not bringing terrorists to our nation. You can complain about how stupid the President is, but he's not as dumb as you think.

Does this really look like a country that wants to blow you up?

Get your facts straight.

[jeverett]

Originally Posted by JungleLarry

You guys have no idea what is going on. UAE is about as much a threat to our security as Great Britain is. You guys didn't forget that the British once burned down our White House, did you? And yet, they still own our ports after the history we've had with them.

The company that bought the ports has an impecable security record, lacking any sort of mistakes or blemishes. The country is also intensely modernized and EXTREMELY wealthy. They're not your average run-of-the-mill Arab nation. It's not like we're handing our ports over to the Taliban. But most Americans are too simple-minded to look past a person's nationality and give them the benefit of the doubt. If a bomb exploded at one of these ports while it was held by the UAE, trust me when I say there would be a big price to pay...and that's a risk they're not willing to make.

ALSO - they don't even CARE about American ports. When they bought the British company they were after the more lucrative Chinese and Indian ports, not ones in the United States. Once again...American ego.

This deal was about money, not bringing terrorists to our nation. You can complain about how stupid the President is, but he's not as dumb as you think.

Does this really look like a country that wants to blow you up?

Get your facts straight.

glad to see there is atleast one other perosn with a brain out there.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by jeverett

glad to see there is atleast one other perosn with a brain out there.

Hey
I have a brain too,

Yes, I fully agree with what the poster said.

The thing that got me was the way Bush handled it, if he had'nt been such an A** about it. maybe it might have happend.

[allred]

Originally Posted by RepublicanJeepr

Even great men make mistakes.

You mean all those *******es who voted for Bush?