Posted on 02/21/2006 3:26:05 PM PST by bikepacker67
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush rejected congressional pressure to step in and suspend an Arab company's takeover of operations at major U.S. seaports on Tuesday and vowed to veto any legislation to block the deal.
"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters aboard Air Force One. If Congress passed a law to stop the deal, "I'll deal with it with a veto."
The port operations erupted as a major political headache for Bush, whose fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill joined Democrats in questioning the deal.
Senate Republican leader Bill Frist added his voice to Capitol Hill outcry against the decision allowing state-controlled Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates to manage ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
"If the administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review," Frist, a Tennessean and potential 2008 presidential contender, said in a statement.
Frist's decision to join the fray was significant because as majority leader he sets the Senate's agenda. Other lawmakers from both parties said they already had legislation ready to go to block the decision by a Treasury-led interagency panel known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Along with state and local officials from the affected areas, the lawmakers were indignant about the deal's impact on the ports, considered vulnerable since the September 11 attacks. Dubai Ports World is on the verge of taking over Britain's P&O, which now manages the ports.
"It's hard to believe that this Administration would be so out of touch with the American people's national security concerns, that it would use its first ever veto to save this troubling Dubai ports deal," said New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer
Bush said he was trying to conduct a fair foreign policy.
"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a great British company," Bush said.
"I'm trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world 'we'll treat you fairly.'"
"And after careful scrutiny, we believe this deal is a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country and at the same time sends that signal that we are willing to treat people fairly."
Schumer and Republican Rep. Peter King of New York vowed to try and block the deal legislatively as soon as Congress is back in town on Monday. King is chairman of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee.
A similar hail of criticism from American lawmakers last year drove off a bid by China's state-controlled CNOOC Ltd. for American oil company Unocal.
Officials from several Bush administration departments defended the Dubai Ports World decision.
Treasury spokesman Tony Fratto said all the administration members of the committee on foreign investment, including the Department of Homeland Security, agreed the transaction could proceed.
State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said a risk assessment by the U.S. intelligence community and decided there was no objection on national security grounds.
At the Justice Department, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stressed the deal had only to do with the management of port operations -- not security.
At the Pentagon, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace defended the United Arab Emirates as a close ally of the United States.
P&O shareholders last week approved Dubai Ports World's $6.8 billion takeover, which would create the world's third-largest ports group. A British court is expected to give its final approval at a hearing scheduled for February 27.
A UAE government official said the security concerns were unfounded given his country's close ties with Washington and Dubai Ports' record as global operator. U.S. warships often call at the UAE's Jebel Ali port, run by Dubai Ports.
U.S. seaports handle 2 billion ton(ne)s of freight a year. Only about 5 percent of containers are examined on arrival.
In other words, this could be a Rove rope-a-dope.
Hahaha! I remember back during his first term, when he was doing all those unconservative things, his hardcore supporters would tell me, "Don't worry! He's just doing that so he can have pull and legitimacy in his second term, when he can really make a difference!"
Is it too late to call bullshit?
I love watching Lou Dobbs. He's doing well today.
/sorry, had to be done.
It's a loser right now, but I am waiting to hear all the facts.
Yeah, and just think: the Panama Canal and most of the other ports are run by the Chinese. Makes you feel all warm & fuzzy, doesn't it.
No, call it if you wish. I just hadn't seen a possible explanation yet, and wanted to see some discussion on it.
There sure are a lot of threads on this. The reaction seems to be shallow at best and makes little rational sense. What is surprising is the Prez's willingness to veto a possible Congressional Bill if that comes about.
I think it will be overridden, and give Bushie a well deserved Omelet facial.
Carter supporting Bush is a HUGE red flag!! This situation requires our immediate attention...and why is Bush being so defensive and threatening to veto any attempt to stop this??
Your post #10. Thanks - very informative
That is possible. There is an amount of mumbo-jumbo coming out of the White House lately that should be backed up by statements in depth. If we listen only to the Prez we get kind of an executive summary from the Man of Few Words. I would like the energy dependency statements, especially of the astounding new technology predictions, to be fleshed out, because nobody can afford to take these statements on faith. If solar cells are going to be available for 5 cents a watt next week, they should say so.
MILITARY PORTS?!? Ok, that does it. Come March 3rd or whatever the date is, Bush has lost me.
Carter would not intentionally support Bush. But, he is gettng on in years and ought to simply retire.
I hate to find out the answer to that question.
Ok thanks..
http://webnewsroom.blogspot.com/2006/02/president-bush-will-veto-bill-undoing.html
President Bush today said that he will veto any bill to cancel the deal granting control of six U.S. ports to a government-owned company from Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates, despite heavy opposition from leaders of both parties. Congressional leaders have been promising to send such a bill to the President's desk.
The secret deal would allow Dubai Ports World to gain control of six major American ports through its purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which currently runs the ports: New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami.
"Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract. The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation," said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. President Bush noted that the Coast Guard will still be in charge of security. But in order for the company to do its job effectively, security plans and arrangements will have to be shared with the contractor.
The Bush administration considers the UAE a key ally in the War on Terror, but the UAE has been a significant sponsor of terrorism. It was the home of Marwan al-Shehi, one of the 19 hijackers who killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. Other hijackers travelled through the UAE. The UAE was an important financial base for the September 11 hijackers.
After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts. The UAE is a transit point for Al Qaeda. It has been a financier of Al Qaeda. According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and is militantly anti-Israel.
The CIA has identified the UAE as a major center for drug running and money laundering. It has served as a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
The UAE is a federation of seven Arab emirates on the Arabian peninsula.
What happens if nuclear materials pass through one of these ports? How will the UAE direct its employees to deal with that? The threat to our national security is clear. It is amazing and disappointing that the Bush Administration refuses to see this.
This deal gives the impression that the Bush administration does not care about port security. While the Administration has done very good things in the War on Terror, this deal undermines all their good work.
This is his reasoning:
["I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a great British company," Bush said. "I'm trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world 'we'll treat you fairly. And after careful scrutiny, we believe this deal is a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country and at the same time sends that signal that we are willing to treat people fairly."]
...and his reasoning is correct assuming we are using a carrot and stick approach to Middle Eastern countries. The ones which uphold the liberties of its citizens or move quickly in that direction we should reward, and the ones which continue to oppress the peasants should be moved up the list to be dealt with in the manner of Afghanistan and Iraq.
If this deal goes through, there will be NO change in how port security is handled, and no difference in our safety.
Anyone who disagrees should explain specifically why.
Hysteria reigns right now. Sad and disgusting.
How's your little girl puppy doing?
Bushbot.
[The UAE is our biggest ally in the region and we have a CIA base there. Maybe killing this deal puts all that in jeopardy. There is certainly more to it than the bloviating politicians who are against this in a knee jerk reaction are letting on.]
YES!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.