Ports and Politics

[kniedzw]

For once in my life, I actually agree with the Bush administration's stance on an issue. That I find myself agreeing with their logic (if not their diplomacy and politicking surrounding their decision) is perhaps less distressing than the fact that my agreement with their policy has caused me to double- and triple-check my reasoning. I suppose I

Comments

Right for the wrong reasons

[foxtown]

Anyone else catch that the appointee that approved the merger happened to run the company that is selling the rights? At least that is what I thought I caught on NPR the other day, but I could have miss heard it.

I agree that Bush is making the right stand, but I also don't fault the democrats for holding his feet to the fire for his seeming "flip-floping" on the national security issue. It is petty though and I don't think that Bush will really learn the lesson I want him to from it.

Re: Right for the wrong reasons

[kniedzw]

Hadn't heard that, but given the big money in our current administration, it wouldn't surprise me.

That said, I'm always in awe when our government has a say in the merger of two non-US companies.

Re: Right for the wrong reasons

[foxtown]

Not merger. Sale of rights.

Those rights are ultimately given by the US government, so of course we have a say. We could revoke the right and put it back up for auction if we really wanted...

This is not an anti-trust issue, which is the only case that we can really oppose a merger per se.

Re: Right for the wrong reasons

[kniedzw]

Nope. P&O is being taken over by Dubai Ports World. That's how they're going to control the ports going forward. P&O currently has the rights over the ports.

Re: Right for the wrong reasons

[foxtown]

Oops. Guess I missed that.

Still the US gov could still relinquish the contract for national security reasons. Not a good move, but we could do it.