Congress bitchslaps Bush on Dubai ports deal

[bascule]

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

 

In a nutshell:

 

The House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 to block the Dubai Ports deal.

 

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

 

So basically, if Bush wants to keep the UAE investors in the Carlyle Group happy by vetoing the bill (which would, of course, be his first veto ever!), he's going to f*ck over a lot of ordinary Americans in the process, in addition to the military.

 

Well played, Congress!

[Pangloss]

One of your more disappointing posts, I must say. I don't think the amendment issue will play out the way the House thinks it will. I happen to disagree with the President on this, but the ideological spin and polarization on this issue has gotten ridiculous.

 

It's just wrong to say "he's going to f*ck over a lot of ordinary Americans in the process, in addition to the military" -- if you pander to politicians playing games, then you're being just as bad as they are. It's just a matter of time before that backfires on you.

 

This situation is far more complex in both its political ramifications and its security concerns than can be appreciated with simplistic left-wing or right-wing rabble-rousing.

 

Incidentally, overriding a veto requires the participation of both houses of Congress. Your message (congratulating "congress") in fact only addresses the House of Representatives. 67 senators have to decide to vote against the president as well, and it is not at all clear at this time whether that will happen or not.

[bascule]

I don't think the amendment issue will play out the way the House thinks it will.

 

How do you think it will play out?

 

if you pander to politicians playing games, then you're being just as bad as they are.

 

I thought this was a brilliant bit of political manuvering. I'm waiting with bated breath to see if all of Bush's threats of vetoing the bill were idle as they have been in the past.

 

You can call me "bad" for enjoying the seemy underbelly of political strategizing. I don't care. I'm just happy to see members of the House taking a stand against Bush in what I see as our president selling out to foreign powers, something I find absolutely detestable.

 

If Bush vetoes this bill, I think it will destroy his career.

 

Incidentally, overriding a veto requires the participation of both houses of Congress. Your message (congratulating "congress") in fact only addresses the House of Representatives. 67 senators have to decide to vote against the president as well, and it is not at all clear at this time whether that will happen or not.

 

If Bush vetoes the bill the damage is already done. It will show his loyalties lie in his business associations and not in the best interests of the American people.

[bascule]

Well, looks like Dubai is laying down their king

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/port.security/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

 

Success!

[Jim]

I happen to disagree with the President on this, but the ideological spin and polarization on this issue has gotten ridiculous.

 

I couldn't agree more. The pandering on this issue has been atrocious. I'm not sure which is worse - the republicans who probably actually believe this was a huge security issue or the democrats who purport to be against profiling Arabs in airports but would profile an entire country from administering operations but not security at the ports. I guess it's possible at least some of the republicans were sincere in their position.

 

In the meantime, we gave the extremists in Arabic countries another card to play.

 

I also give Bush credit for standing up for what he believes is right instead of immediately caving to the pressure. Even if you disagree with him, you have to admit that he is a president who rules for the good of the country. He didn't have to bet his entire legacy on Iraq any more than he had to stand up to the scare mongers on this issue. There was little political advantage to either move but he firmly, hopefully correctly, believed both moves were in the best interests of the country.

[Pangloss]

My posting on this has obviously been OBE'd (overtaken by events), but I'll go ahead and make a couple of points anyway.

 

How do you think it will play out?

 

My feeling was (and this may still be relevent at some point; I'm not sure this issue is actually closed yet) that attaching that kind of rider was a risky and debatable tactic' date=' and could backfire.

 

 

I thought this was a brilliant bit of political manuvering. I'm waiting with bated breath to see if all of Bush's threats of vetoing the bill were idle as they have been in the past.

 

You can call me "bad" for enjoying the seemy underbelly of political strategizing. I don't care. I'm just happy to see members of the House taking a stand against Bush in what I see as our president selling out to foreign powers, something I find absolutely detestable.

 

If Bush vetoes this bill, I think it will destroy his career.

 

Well you're not bad for having an opinion, of course. But I generally try to discourage people from confusing objective political observations with their personal desires and preferences. That's clearly the case in the above quote. (grin) No offense, but you thought it was brilliant because you liked what they were doing. Had congressional Republicans attached a rider requiring the President to return prayer to public schools, I don't think you would have thought that the tactic was anything quite so "brilliant". I hope you see my point here -- I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your opinion. Your analysis simply lacks any objective merit.

 

And the last point is just silly, and detracts from your argument completely. It's not even an apt metaphor -- the phrase "destroy ... career" (in its various forms) refers to an individuals future. Presidents are at the end of their careers.

 

But it could certainly have negative political implications for the president, and there's nothing wrong with that observation at all, and the quote below is a relevent and reasonable point, IMO, even if I don't entirely agree with it.

 

If Bush vetoes the bill the damage is already done. It will show his loyalties lie in his business associations and not in the best interests of the American people.

[Pangloss]

Well' date=' looks like Dubai is laying down their king

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/port.security/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

 

Success![/quote']

 

Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand, I think Congressional Democrats may have a point here that this issue may not yet be closed.

 

Two main issues to consider, going forward:

 

1) Will DPW *actually* throw in the towel here, or will they merely sell their interests to a wholly owned (but American-based) subsidiary?

 

2) If they do completely throw in the towel, there may be some other concerns that congress and the executive branch should look at regarding foreign ownership of port management.

 

If your goal was to make the president look bad, go ahead and declare success and move on. If your goal is to do something about our monumental port security problems, then let's leverage this public interest into SOME kind of actual, tangible result.

[Pangloss]

In the meantime' date=' we gave the extremists in Arabic countries another card to play.[/quote']

 

I agree, and the Democrats have done more damage here than the Republicans, since they were supposed to be "the party that cares about Islam". What we learned from this is that they were just as willing to jump on the Racism bandwagon as anybody else. After which they quickly realized their mistake and coughed up a furball about how this was really not about Arabs per se.

 

But the good news here is that that backpedalling is why Congressional Democrats are now in the position on keeping this issue open a little longer. They're politically motivated to insist that the issue be investigated further, in order to cover their racist gut reaction. But that means that we might be able to get something useful out of this, in the form of better security measures.

 

It could end up being one of those rare turnabouts in politics, where demogogery actually produces a useful result.

 

 

I also give Bush credit for standing up for what he believes is right instead of immediately caving to the pressure. Even if you disagree with him, you have to admit that he is a president who rules for the good of the country. He didn't have to bet his entire legacy on Iraq any more than he had to stand up to the scare mongers on this issue. There was little political advantage to either move but he firmly, hopefully correctly, believed both moves were in the best interests of the country.

 

The president's willingness to push issues in spite of difficulties is one of his better qualities.

[Jim]

I agree, and the Democrats have done more damage here than the Republicans, since they were supposed to be "the party that cares about Islam". What we learned from this is that they were just as willing to jump on the Racism bandwagon as anybody else. After which they quickly realized their mistake and coughed up a furball about how this was really not about Arabs per se.

 

Let's not forget what we learned in this episode about the MSM who blithely let racism have the day when it harmed Bush.

 

But the good news here is that that backpedaling is why Congressional Democrats are now in the position on keeping this issue open a little longer. They're politically motivated to insist that the issue be investigated further, in order to cover their racist gut reaction. But that means that we might be able to get something useful out of this, in the form of better security measures.

 

It could end up being one of those rare turnabouts in politics, where demagoguery actually produces a useful result.

 

I suppose so - although I wouldn't purport to know what should be done at the ports. You hear the statistic that only 5% of containers are inspected yet no one really says what is feasible or what really should be done. I suspect it is another of those areas where simplicity reigns supreme.

 

The president's willingness to push issues in spite of difficulties is one of his better qualities.

 

Joe Lieberman is the only democrat of national prominence who immediately leaps to my mind as having the courage to advocate what is in the best interests of the country despite the political fallout.

[pcs]

Well' date=' looks like Dubai is laying down their king

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/port.security/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

 

Success![/quote']

 

Success? No veto, no embarassing showdown for the President. On the other hand, now you have the excrutiating task of discovering a US entity that can handle the responsibility of managing US terminal operations. If we see longshoremen in NY and NJ striking on the East Coast this year, somehow I don't think that will be to the political misfortune of the President.

[Pangloss]

Joe Lieberman is the only democrat of national prominence who immediately leaps to my mind as having the courage to advocate what is in the best interests of the country despite the political fallout.

 

Not to get too far off the subject, but I agree with you there. I was disappointed in Lieberman's clearly partisan vote on Justice Alito. But generally speaking, he's better than most as being non-partisan when the need arises.

[Jim]

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

 

In a nutshell:

 

The House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 to block the Dubai Ports deal.

 

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

 

So basically' date=' if Bush wants to keep the UAE investors in the Carlyle Group happy by vetoing the bill (which would, of course, be his first veto ever!), he's going to f*ck over a lot of ordinary Americans in the process, in addition to the military.

 

Well played, Congress![/quote']

 

Victor Hansen with a Port Post-Mortem

 

In retrospect, America went collectively insane over the possibility that a company owned by Dubai's government would operate several of our ports.

 

Rarely has reason been so routed by pure emotion. Dubai is a Westernizing state that long ago left the 8th century and accepts the modern world of globalized commerce and finance. This member of the United Arab Emirates has — especially after Sept. 11 — passed on intelligence, hosted our fleet and provided a foothold in the Gulf near Iraq and Iran.

 

No doubt some members of its extended government, as is true of many of the monarchies of the Gulf, have triangulated against the United States. But then so have China, Russia and most of Europe.

 

Yet if we are going to win this war against radical Islam, it will be through drawing the Arab world into the global system of Western jurisprudence, politics and business. The perceived defamation of a proven Arab consortium only hurts our cause.

 

To understand the fiasco, we must allot blame to almost everyone involved.

[Skye]

Yeah, it was a silly decision. Hopefully the Arabs will just treat it as such and everyone can move on.