Mar 08 2006

Will Congress Sink Dubai Deal?

Published by at 6:39 pm under All General Discussions,UAE-DPW

Lots of breaking news about Congress attempting to block the Dubai Deal through legislation. They will not want to call Bush’s bluff, unless they want to see a real exercise in Presidential power.

No, not the Veto. The pen. Bush has a 45 day review going on where he decides the final outcome. If legislation looks to pass watch Bush sign off on the deal early, making it immune from any laws passed after the fact. As we all should know – you cannot make something illegal after the fact.


11 responses so far

11 Responses to “Will Congress Sink Dubai Deal?”

  1. Aitch748 says:

    Farkin’ brilliant. I’d love to see that happen.

  2. AJStrata says:


    I thought it was brilliant too! This way the reps can distance themselves from Bush for 2006 on this matter if they need to, and the dems will lose the issue all together.

    Politics can be bloody fun.


  3. HaroldHutchison says:

    I hope he does. We need to stand by allies. I’ve think I’ve been consistent in that regard, being willing to criticize Colin Powell for blacklisting Carlos Castano’s United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, criticizing the decision to dump on Uzbekistan, in addition to hammering critics of the port deal for their comments about the UAE.

    Loyalty to allies is in America’s interest.

  4. Where’s The Panic Room?…

    The Republicans are looking foolish, and the Democrats must be rubbing their hands with glee. We are handing this victory to them on a silver platter. We could instead be dragging the hypocrisy of the Democrats through the wringer, I mean come on, ev…

  5. DubiousD says:

    Could somebody please clue me in on one small matter? Various blogs have made glancing reference to the fact that several Saudi Arabian companies currently own and maintain facilities at US ports.

    Assuming for the moment that this is true:

    Since most of the 9-11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, why is no one in Congress or the media screaming about those port deals? Why did it take a deal with the UAE, arguably the Arab country harboring the least enmity toward American interests, to bring this issue to a head?

  6. Kaz-Man says:

    Flopping Aces,
    What saves Republicans is that the Democrats also look foolish. It seems like its a race to see which party is going to implode first, but my money is on the donkeys. Congressional Republicans can appear to be opposing the deal on principal, but with so many Clintonistas in bed with the UAE it is difficult for Hillary and Co. to shrill as loudly about this as they want to.
    Both sides look like they are herding cats, but when the shit hits the fanover the next few months (Iran and the NSA leak investigations) we’ll see which party is more cohesive.

  7. Bill Faith says:

    I’ve linked from

    An excerpt from my post at

    “I’m going to date myself to try to put some perspective on things. A lot of people my age remember the term “Kit Carson Scout.” … Kit Carsons were former enemies and trusting them didn’t come naturally, but we needed their help so we did anyway, or at least pretended to. As a REMF I didn’t deal personally with Kit Carsons, but I was never quite sure there were any Vietnamese I really wanted to turn my back on. Today, trusting Arabs and Muslims doesn’t come naturally to a lot of us either, but we have a situation on our hands that I believe demands that we trust some of them, or at least pretend to, because we need them in our fight against others that we know we can’t trust.”

  8. The Stupid Party Returns…

    … I took my best shot at explaining why the DPW deal needs to be approved here. My thinking hasn’t changed. …..

  9. RiverRat says:

    Well, it looks as if the American sheeple, misguided the paleo-progressive Press, have expressed their will. The sheeple’s Congressional lapdogs have rolled over and exposed their genitals for a massage.

    So, what’s a Bushy sheepdog to do? I have a couple of suggestions for the Sheepdog-in-Chief.

    Ask DPW to offer their American operations to an American owned company at their cost. If there are no takers, the Sheepdog-in Chief shoud issue an order requiring salary reductions from our Congressional lapdogs sufficient to provide payment to DPW for the American operations of P&O.

    If the Congressional lapdogs don’t want to do something constructive by managing their investment for profit they can sell it to NSCSA (National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia) which has been managing port operations in the US for about a decade.

    Think that’ll work?

  10. Retired Spook says:

    RiverRat, do I detect a hint of sarcasm in your post?

    I realize it’s anecdotal evidence, which is worth about as much as a bucket of warm spit, but virtually everyone I know who opposes the DPW deal and most blog comments I’ve read opposing it still seem to be of the mistaken opinion that we are either selling port security or selling the ports themselves to DPW. If 70% of the public is opposed to the deal, I’m willing to bet that at least 70% of that 70% are basing their opposition on misinformation.

  11. Karig says:

    Retired Spook — That’s my thought also. The language “out there” is still that we’re “selling ports” to Dubai or that Dubai will “control our ports” or “control port security.” I wonder how many of that 70% have even heard the word “terminal” in connection with this deal?

    And now Congress wants the issue to go away RIGHT NOW, so they attach an amendment to a must-pass spending bill, and thus attempt to force the President to choose between (1) signing the bill, funding the war for a while longer, but kicking Dubai out of our ports when the U.A.E. is our staunchest ally in the Middle East, and (2) vetoing the bill, delaying funding for the war, but allowing Dubai to get what they’ve paid for.

    It’s as if Congress is telling Bush, “If you want to do something about Iran, you can get the funding, or you can get continued good relations with the country closest to Iran from which attacks can be launched — but you ain’t getting both.” Stupid.