Thoughts on Port's Aquisition?

[kite]

Re: Thoughts on Port's Aquisition?

03/02/06 FOX Poll: Most Oppose Port Deal; Republicans Lose Ground

Thursday, March 02, 2006

By Dana Blanton



NEW YORK — Most Americans oppose allowing a Dubai company to run some U.S. ports, even as a majority understands the U.S. would continue to control port security, according to a new FOX News poll. One in four sees the United Arab Emirates as a strong ally, but most either disagree or are unsure. In addition, the poll shows Republicans have lost ground on the issue of terrorism, and by a wide margin voters now think it would be better for the country if Democrats win control of Congress in this year’s midterm election.

For only the second time of his presidency, the poll finds that President Bush’s overall job approval rating has fallen below 40 percent — today 39 percent of Americans say they approve and a 54 percent majority disapproves. Late last year the president’s approval hit a record-low of 36 percent (8-9 November 2005).

This is also one of only a handful of times that Bush's approval has dropped below 80 percent among Republicans. Today 77 percent of Republicans approve, down from 82 percent in early February. Disapproval among Democrats went from 79 percent in early February to 84 percent today. Approval among independents is essentially unchanged at 35 percent.

"People's opinions of the president are based largely on how they perceive things in the country are going in general rather than how he is doing in his day-to-day job," says Opinion Dynamics Vice President Lawrence Shiman. "When you combine the fact that people are paying more attention to Iraq than any other issue with the perception of Iraq as being on the brink of a civil war, it is not surprising the president and his party are struggling in the polls."

The port controversy, along with the situation in Iraq (fully 81 percent of Americans think it is likely Iraq will end up in a civil war), appears to be taking a toll on Republicans.

At the beginning of the year the Republican Party held a 13-percentage point advantage over Democrats on being the party trusted to do a better job protecting the country from terrorism. Today Republicans still have the edge, but it has dropped to 5 points.

Furthermore, by a 14-percentage point margin voters think it would be better for the country if Democrats win control of Congress in this year’s election, up from an 8-point edge in early February and 11 points in January.

Most Oppose Port Deal

On the port issue, the new poll finds that 69 percent of Americans oppose allowing the Arab-owned company called Dubai Ports World to manage commercial operations at some U.S. ports — four times as many as support the deal (17 percent).

Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to oppose the deal, however majorities of both major parties are against it. At 81 percent, Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the deal, as do 66 percent of independents and 57 percent of Republicans.

Overall, only 27 percent think the United Arab Emirates is a strong ally of the United States in the war against terrorism, and 77 percent are concerned that having an Arab-owned company manage U.S. ports would jeopardize national security — including nearly half (47 percent) that are "very" concerned.

Among those following news about the ports deal "very" closely, support for the deal increases to 21 percent — slightly higher than the 17 percent overall. Support reaches 41 percent among Americans that agree with President Bush that the United Arab Emirates is a strong ally.

A clear majority (63 percent) correctly identifies the United States as being in charge of port security, even if the Arab-owned company manages the ports — a point the Bush administration has made repeatedly while defending the deal.

"Opposition to the port deal is based primarily on a distrust among Americans of the government of the United Arab Emirates, rather than a misunderstanding of the role the company would play in managing the ports," notes Shiman. "These results are consistent with past research, which showed a high level of distrust of other Middle Eastern allies as well."

The new poll finds widespread agreement that at least some opposition to the deal is based on bias against Arabs: 38 percent say "a lot" and another 32 percent say "some" of the opposition is based on bias.

If the deal goes through, Dubai Ports World would be taking over control of port terminals previously run by a London-based company. Views are sharply divided on whether a Middle Eastern company should be held to a higher standard on security issues than a British company. More than four in 10 (44 percent) think a Middle Eastern company should be held to a higher standard, while a slim 47 percent plurality disagrees.

Voters are slightly pessimistic about the motives of politicians opposing the port deal, as 36 percent think the opposition is based on legitimate security concerns, but slightly more — 42 percent — think it is based on political grandstanding in an election year.

Despite the sizable opposition to the deal, a majority thinks it will go through: 54 percent think a year from now the UAE-company will be managing some ports in the United States.

The controversy over the port deal has raised awareness of ports as a potential terrorist target. Over one-quarter (28 percent) of the public considers ports to be the greatest risk — more so even than airports — for being a target for terrorist attacks, up from 11 percent in 2002.

All in all, half of Americans think U.S. ports are safe today, which is significantly less than the 86 percent that thinks air travel is safe, but more than the 39 percent that believe the country’s borders are secure.

Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News on February 28 - March 1.

Finally, in addition to asking Americans to rate the president’s job performance, the poll asked what kind of job they would be doing if they were in Bush’s shoes. Overall, 37 percent say they think they would be doing a better job than President Bush is doing, 43 percent say worse and 10 percent say the same.

Over half of Democrats (54 percent) think they would be doing a better job than Bush, while only 14 percent of Republicans feel that way. More than two-thirds of Republicans (68 percent) think they would be doing a worse job than their party’s leader.

• PDF: Click here for full poll results.

[kite]

Re: Thoughts on Port's Aquisition?

Link at the end of the article did'nt work, here it is. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_030206.pdf

[Stout1]

Re: Thoughts on Port's Aquisition?

34% Job approval rating. Lowest a pres has had in awhile. Nuff said.

[pigmeat]

Re: Thoughts on Port's Aquisition?

34% Job approval rating. Lowest a pres has had in awhile. Nuff said.

Amen!!!! Only the jesus freaks are left liking Bush..

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: Thoughts on Port's Aquisition?

Amen!!!! Only the jesus freaks are left liking Bush..

Amen again!!

[kite]

Re: Thoughts on Port's Aquisition?

Dubai Company to Give Up Stake in U.S. Ports Deal

Thursday, March 09, 2006

By Liza Porteus



WASHINGTON — A United Arab Emirates-owned company said Thursday it would give up its management stake in a controversial ports deal that has taken Washington by storm and has caused massive upheaval in the president's own party.

The Thursday announcement came just hours after Republican leaders warned President Bush that the House and Senate appeared ready to block Dubai Ports World from taking over some terminal operations at six U.S. ports.

"Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," DP World's chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in a statement, read on the Senate floor by Sen. John Warner, R-Va.

The company said its decision was "based on an understanding that DP World will have time to affect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss."

The announcement was somewhat of a blow for Democrats, who were pushing for a Senate vote on an amendment that would halt the deal. The Senate later voted 51-47 to ignore GOP requests to wait until a 45-day review of the deal is completed before they try to stop it. Republican leaders needed 67 votes to stop debate on the measure.

"This should make the whole issue go away," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, holding up a copy of the DP World press release that announced the U.S. ports concession. "The [review] process is underway ... we should not have to interrupt it on the floor of the United States Senate."

A Warner spokesman told FOX News that based on conversation between his boss and DP World lawyers, "we understand this is a full divestment or sale of the U.S. operations of P&O." That would mean the Senate amendment would essentially be off the table.

Democrats were pushing that amendment to lobbying reform legislation to ensure that no UAE-related company has any control over U.S. port operations, particularly since so few details of the latest DP World plan is known. The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would not only block the Dubai deal, but also other U.S. ports deal with any company wholly owned or controlled by any foreign government that recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan from 1996-2001.

If they succeeded in forcing a vote on the amendment, Democrats could then claim a big election year win in the area of national security — an area Republicans generally have a stronger track record on.

"The bottom line is, security has to come first. We know that this deal would not bring security," Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters Thursday. "We had to force this vote, it's unfortunate that we did but now the handwriting is on the wall and that is that the UAE will not operate ports in the United States of America, plain and simple."

The political firestorm erupted after the administration approved a plan to hand over some terminal currently operated by the British company, Peninsular & Oriental Steam navigation Co., to the UAE-owned DP World.

DP World finalized its $6.8 billion purchase earlier Thursday of P&O, which through a U.S. subsidiary runs important operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. It also plays a lesser role in dockside activities at 16 other American ports.

The deal in question, however, focused primarily on lucrative Asian markets. DP World valued its rival's American operations at less than 10 percent of the nearly $7 billion total purchase.

A senior Frist aide told FOX News that the Senate majority leader and his staff informed DP World and UAE government officials Wednesday night to pull the plug on the deal. When asked what prompted this action from Frist, the aide said the House action Wednesday night created a "destabilized coalition among House and Senate GOP."

Just one night before, GOP-led House Appropriations Committee passed a bill blocking the deal. Bush has vowed to veto any measure halting the deal.

By attaching it to a larger must-pass $91 billion spending bill, lawmakers are challenging Bush: If he follows through on his veto threat, he would also be vetoing the entire package.

Earlier Thursday, the White House said Bush was open to compromise but expressed concern that the House GOP tactic could "slow down passage of vital funds and resources" and said Bush's veto threat still stood.

"It does provide a way forward and resolve the matter," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said later, after the DP World announcement. "We have a strong relationship with the UAE and a good partnership in the global war on terrorism and I think their decision reflects the importance of our broader relationship."

The administration has repeatedly argued that port security would not be outsourced as part of the deal and that the UAE is a strong ally in the War on Terror since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The White House even reluctantly agreed to conduct a broader investigation into potential security risks of DP World's plans, but that has not been enough.

'The Devil's in the Details'

With the latest DP World news, many members of Congress who thus far have been critical of the deal may be much more positive toward it.

"It resolves all of the security issues involved," Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and a lead critic of the deal, told FOX News. "It's a very positive step and now we can go forward on overall legislation dealing with the ports."

"DP World's agreement is a positive outcome," added Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. "I hope that it will not impact our strong relationship with the United Arab Emirates, a valuable ally in prosecuting the War on Terror."

Added Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo." "Dubai's decision to withdraw, and turn over management of the ports to a U.S. company, certainly relieves those concerns. Congress still has a critical roll to play in decisions that affect ports security, and national security overall."

But many lawmakers, particularly Democrats, are still cautious, arguing that DP World has to let go of all control over any firm that may take over the port operations.

"The devil's in the details," Schumer said. "Those of us who feel strongly about this issue believe that the U.S. part of the British company should have no connection to the United Arab Emirates or DP World."

On the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., argued that with Dubai's record of failing to recognize Israel, among other things, it's "crazy" to do business of any great magnitude with a UAE-owned firm.

"We ought to play showdown here, to use the expression, and vote whether or not we want this deal to go through," Lautenberg said. "It's not political, just do it."

Senate GOP leaders had been hoping to prevent any votes until the conclusion of a 45-day review of the deal, being conducted by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

"The right thing to do right now is not to vote on this [Schumer] amendment," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said Thursday on the Senate floor. "The amendment attempting to be offered is a political stunt, not based on knowledge of what is and isn't the facts. ... We can beat up on the president but the fact is, he's operating under the law. He has not broken law. Now maybe the law needs to be changed ... [but] we've got 45 days. And if true that this should not go through, then we'll stop it ... but it will be on the basis of fact, not politics."

Frist tried to argue that the lobbying reform bill should be dealt with before the ports issue; before Schumer's actions Wednesday, Senate Democrats had earlier said they would not try to attach ports bills to the lobbying measure. But Democrats were demanding that a specific time and date be set to debate and vote on the hot-button topic. Instead of giving them a date, Frist on Thursday ended debate on the lobby bill altogether and moved on to a budget bill.

"This issue should not be tangled up on the debate over whether or not to strengthen our lobbying disclosure laws," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who has been a leader on both issues.

The House committee-passed amendment was attached to a $91 billion emergency supplemental funding measure for hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Wednesday. The committee vote in favor of the deal-blocker package was 62-2. The full House could consider the measure as early as next week.

But Democrats charge that the administration should be prevented not only from going through with this deal involving the UAE-owned company, but also from future deals allowing foreign-government owned companies from controlling U.S. assets.

"The Republican proposal only stops President Bush's current backroom Dubai ports deal. It does not prohibit future ill-advised Bush administration agreements that will let other firms controlled by foreign governments operate in U.S. ports, nor does it address the lack of U.S. cargo security, which poses an even larger threat," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

But House Republicans feared that if they did not move to block the deal now, Democrats would beat them to it.

"There's no way that we should or will, leave the national security issue to the Democrats," Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told FOX News on Thursday. "We could pay a price in the fall [elections] and we cannot afford not to do this."

Democrats said the Dubai deal is just a small part of the broader issue of port security that they say the Bush administration has not paid enough attention to.

"Dubai deal or no Dubai deal, it's clear that this is just the tip of the iceberg of the administration's failure on port security," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. "A new report from the Department of Homeland Security shows that Target does a better job monitoring their stores than our government does monitoring our ports. Their failure to put together a basic program after all the warnings must be a wake-up call to finally get it right on homeland security."

[Merc]

Re: Thoughts on Port's Aquisition?

can you sight some examples?

thanks

Here is a big name ******

[kite]

Re: Thoughts on Port's Aquisition?

Man it just keeps coming about this deal. Here's the latest. Any new thoughts on this?????????


Bush Worried Collapsed Ports Deal Could Send Wrong Message to Allies

Friday, March 10, 2006

By Liza Porteus



WASHINGTON — President Bush on Friday said he's worried that this week's meltdown of a U.S. ports deal with a United Arab Emirates-owned company could send the wrong message to important allies in the Middle East.

"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," Bush said in remarks to the National Newspaper Association. "In order to win the War on Terror, we have got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate, Arab countries in the Midddle East. UAE is a committed ally in the War on terror, they are a key partner for our military in a critical region."

Although a potentially explosive showdown between and Congress over a controversial ports deal has been mostly defused, there are still some lingering concerns over the deal and even bigger concerns over the broader issue of port security in the United States.

"The problem of the political moment has passed, but the problem of adequate port security still looms large," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

"There are gaping holes in cargo and port security that need to be plugged," added Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.

Meanwhile, free talks between the United States and the UAE were postponed Friday. The talks, which were supposed to begin Monday, were postponed because both sides need more time to prepare, according to the office of U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman. A USTR spokeswoman would not say whether the postponement was related to the ports deal.

The United Arab Emirates-owned company Dubai Ports World said Thursday it would give up its management stake in the ports deal that has caused massive upheaval in Washington, even among the president's own party. The concession came after lawmakers from both sides of the aisle decried the Bush administration for not adequately reviewing the deal they said puts the security of the United States at risk.

"I'm sure the decision by Dubai Ports World was a difficult decision, to hand over port operations they had purchased from another company," Bush said. "My administration was satisfied that port security would not have been undermined by the agreement. Neverthless, Congress was still very much opposed to it. My administration will continue to work with the Congress to provide a greater understanding of how these transactions are approved."

Although the administration insisted that turning over some port operations to the UAE company did not amount to outsourcing port security, lawmakers argued that operations and security go hand-in-hand. The ports in question are currently operated by a British company, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Bush has consistently argued that it sends the wrong message to the world to OK deals with some foreign companies and not others. He, along with other White House and U.S. military officials, have consistently said the UAE is a solid ally in the War on Terror, particularly in a region where the United States is in desperate need of support. Plus, Dubai services more U.S. military ships than any other foreign country, the president said.

"They're sharing intelligence so we can hunt down the terrorists. ...They helped us shut down a world wide proliferation network run by A.Q. Khan," Bush said, referring to the Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

"UAE is a valued and strategic partner," the president continued. "I'm committed to strengthening our relationship with the UAE."

Some business corners are also warning lawmakers not to take any hasty action that may put a damper on trade between the United States and the Middle East.

"While the security of the American people and our critical infrastructure must always be a top priority, implementing the laws that could harm the health of our economy in the name of national security would be a grave mistake," said Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "All parties involved must strive to find a balance that keeps us safe while at the same time allows our economy to continue to flourish."

Lawmakers also are faulting the process by which such foreign acquisitions are vetted. These deals normally undergo a 45-day review by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

"There were serious concerns about this transaction, particularly since the administration initially failed to conduct a thorough analysis of its national security implications," said Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The Maine Republican plans to introduce legislation to revamp the process for reviewing foreign acquisitions. That's just one of many bills introduced to deal with port operations and foreign ownership of U.S. assets since the ports deal came to a boil.

"Foreign acquisitions should be scrutinized from both a national security and a homeland security perspective," Collins added. "If there is any silver lining to this issue, it is that it has highlighted the vulnerability of our ports and the need for a greater emphasis on security."

Dubai is 'Only the Beginning'

DP World announced on Thursday that it would divest itself of all American interests and transfer its operations of U.S. ports to an American company. The announcement came just hours after Republican leaders warned Bush that the House and Senate appeared ready to block the deal.

"Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," DP World's chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in a statement, read on the Senate floor by Sen. John Warner, R-Va.

Democrats were pushing for a Senate vote on an amendment that would halt the deal. The Senate later voted to ignore GOP requests to wait until a 45-day review of the deal is completed before they try to stop it.

A Warner spokesman told FOX News that based on conversation between his boss and DP World lawyers, "we understand this is a full divestment or sale of the U.S. operations of P&O." That would mean the Senate amendment would essentially be off the table. But some lawmakers are still not convinced.

"What is the nature of this transaction? In my mind, the only way it satisfies us is if it's a real divestiture — divestiture means no ownership, no control," Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., told FOX News on Friday.

Menendez has co-sponsored legislation that says: No foreign governments can own or operate port terminal operations in the United States; security reviews of current deals involving foreign government-owned companies and U.S. courts be regularly conducted; and the process by which such foreign acquistions are currently vetted.

"Dubai is not the beginning or the end, it's only the beginning, actually, of a more comprehensive review," Menedez said. "When it comes to our national security, we can't take a second seat to commercial enterprises or the feelings of another country."

Democrats were trying to attach an amendment, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, to lobbying reform legislation to ensure that no company controlled by a government that recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan has any control over U.S. port operations. The UAE recognized the iron-fisted tribal group.

"The bottom line is, security has to come first. We know that this deal would not bring security," Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters Thursday. "We had to force this vote, it's unfortunate that we did but now the handwriting is on the wall and that is that the UAE will not operate ports in the United States of America, plain and simple."

A senior Frist aide told FOX News that the Senate majority leader and his staff informed DP World and UAE government officials Wednesday night to pull the plug on the deal. When asked what prompted this action from Frist, the aide said the House action Wednesday night created a "destabilized coalition among House and Senate GOP."

Just one night before, GOP-led House Appropriations Committee passed a bill blocking only the DP World deal, no other foreign acquisitions. Bush has vowed to veto any measure halting the deal.

'The Devil's in the Details'

With the latest DP World news, many members of Congress who thus far have been critical of the deal may be much more positive toward it.

"It resolves all of the security issues involved," Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and a lead critic of the deal, told FOX News. "It's a very positive step and now we can go forward on overall legislation dealing with the ports."

"DP World's agreement is a positive outcome," added Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. "I hope that it will not impact our strong relationship with the United Arab Emirates, a valuable ally in prosecuting the War on Terror."

Added Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo." "Dubai's decision to withdraw, and turn over management of the ports to a U.S. company, certainly relieves those concerns. Congress still has a critical roll to play in decisions that affect ports security, and national security overall."

But many lawmakers, particularly Democrats, are still cautious, arguing that DP World has to let go of all control over any firm that may take over the port operations. They also say more needs to be done to strengthen overall port security.

"The deep concerns about national security cannot be alleviated until the details of this proposal are fully understood," said House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland. "Moreover, we must not lose sight of the bigger issue: the failure to protect our ports. This administration ... simply have failed to do what is necessary to address the continuing vulnerabilities at our seaports or to examine and address the reasons why so few of our ports are actually managed and operated by American companies. Four years after 9/11, we are still only screening 6 percent of containers entering our ports."

Frist on Thursday ended debate on the lobby reform bill — Democrats' self-proclaimed "signature issue" — and moved on to a budget bill. An aide to Collins said that although Frist said he would attempt to bring back up lobby reform next week, "my boss thinks this will become victim to some must-pass bills."

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: Thoughts on Port's Aquisition?

I don't see why any of this is a surprise to anyone. Ever since that jackass got into office shit like this has been happening left and right. I guess people are finally opening their f'n eyes!