Bush defends ports deal, threatens veto

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-21T213703Z_01_N219976_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-PORTS.xml ^

[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.

[Isabelle]

Perhaps it also because there has been no refineries built in our country for about 30 years and we are not drilling enough oil for ourselves. So we need their oil. Sadly.
And, U.S military has access to ports and airports in the UAE for our war on terror.
Plus, this deal China made with Iran is a little troubling.
Maybe we need this so called ally more than we want.
Or, Bush is just nut's!

[faithincowboys]

Wow, he is really losing me with this. Sitting out 2006 looks more and more likely.

[antiRepublicrat]

Is it too late to call bullshit?

Nope, perfect timing.

[mkjessup]

Your citing Saudi Arabia is, I think, not the best example. The fact that the Saudis have allowed us to establish military bases on their soil is fine and dandy. But remember that those bases are on Saudi soil, not U.S. soil. And it does not give the Saudis close proximity to critical U.S. facilities and defense functions as does this dubious plan to put the UAE in charge of the ports.

[sasha123]

And what thanks did Israel get when they gave up Gaza to the Palestinians recently. If Bush really thinks generosity will change them, then he needs to review the history books.

[hedgetrimmer]

WTH is WRONG with him?

He's a "free trader" and a communitarian.

[sasha123]

And where is this trap going to be placed? Hopefully, not 20 minutes from me where one of the ports islocated.

[Roverman2K]

Nah, this is some kind of deal, he would not do that, mainly because its too obvious. Rope a Dope. This might a way we can control all the ports in the world, think about it.

[VU4G10]

[Sam the Sham]

Do you think that the hatred that the Muslim world harbors for the Christian world, particularly America, is something that can be bought off ? Do you think that 'material self interest' means squat to a suicide bomber ? Do you think that money means anything to religious fanatics ?

Do you know why al-Qaeda loved Afghanistan so much ? It wasn't just the Taliban government. It was because the sheer poverty and backwardness of the country was to them a paradise of rustic purity and virtue. They don't hate poverty. They hate wealth. Why do you think they tried twice to destroy the Twin Towers ? Because it was a symbol of America's wealth.

[hedgetrimmer]

The British company was not owned by the British government. DP world is one hundred percent owned by the UAE government. That is a HUGE difference.

[rodguy911]

I'm trying to keep an open mind on this as well. I heard that lots of terrorists money is funneled through Dubai Banks and they have been very helpful in spotting the bad guys for us.
But here is the problem. Why the hell didn't the White House Communications staff get hold of a bunch of congress critters and sort all this out long before now? This thing has been going on since Nov. What happened?

[varon]

Something's odd about this whole thing. Plus Jimmy Carter siding with Bush. Strange. I think more is going on than what we're being told.

Didn't Carter "give away" the Panama Canal? Maybe George Bush just doesn't want to be outdone by Carter ;-)

[spinestein]

[I point these things out to first establish that the UAE is the WRONG choice so far as managing port operations for the United States, particularly when military equipment is going to be routed through those ports. That would be like authorizing a Nazi firm managed by Albert Speer to oversee the ports from which our troops and supply ships were using to keep the Allied war effort alive during WWII.

...

To return to the Nazi analogy, during World War II, there were no doubt many Germans who expressed their public horror at the misdeeds and crimes of Hitler, but how many of those Germans were secretly rooting for der Fuehrer, and would have shielded and assisted German espionage agents?]


I like the analogy, but I would modify it a little bit.

During WWII we allied with Russia in spite of misgivings at the fact that Stalin was less than an ideal human rights advocate, and the fact that many of the Russian people were ideological opposed to the United States way of life and hoped that we would fall (after we took care of Hitler for them).

We did in fact trust Russia with our mutual military security, but only so far as we knew it was in their national interest, and no further. I believe that Russia during WWII is more analogous to Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates today than to Iran or Syria.

In any case, I am seriously skeptical of the notion that this is a deal put together (especially with Democrats Carter and Clinton involved ) motivated by paying off political buddies. This simply doesn't resemble that, and whatever the motivation is, it's something besides that.

[kenboy]

Because a foreign-owned company -- ANY foreign-owned company -- just shouldn't be controlling our ports, ESPECIALLY ports that handle Army shipping!

[spinestein]

[And what thanks did Israel get when they gave up Gaza to the Palestinians recently.]



Giving up Gaza and getting NOTHING in return is phenominally stupid.

[spinestein]

[Because a foreign-owned company -- ANY foreign-owned company -- just shouldn't be controlling our ports, ESPECIALLY ports that handle Army shipping!]


In general, I support this notion.

[PrinceOfCups]

...The ones which uphold the liberties of its citizens or move quickly in that direction we should reward...


Sometimes carrots ARE the right lever.

[spinestein]

[This thing has been going on since Nov. What happened?]


If we're to depend on members of congress (or worse, journalists) to let us know what's really happening behind the scenes, we'll be waiting a long time.


I don't say this lightly, but I'm afraid that national security has become an issue that congress, the president, both major parties, and the news media have all relegated to spin as a top priority.

[mkjessup]

I like the analogy, but I would modify it a little bit. During WWII we allied with Russia in spite of misgivings at the fact that Stalin was less than an ideal human rights advocate, and the fact that many of the Russian people were ideological opposed to the United States way of life and hoped that we would fall (after we took care of Hitler for them). We did in fact trust Russia with our mutual military security, but only so far as we knew it was in their national interest, and no further. I believe that Russia during WWII is more analogous to Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates today than to Iran or Syria.

That is a good observation, and I think this is a good place to point out that our cozying up with Stalin, and suddenly making Mother Russia our "pal", coupled with the fact that FDR's administration was shot through with Communist sympathizers, we ended up paying the price to Stalin's covert team of the Rosenbergs, their contact Harry Gold, and the insane Klaus Fuchs in the UK, and as a result of our befriending Stalin vs. Hitler, the Soviets exploded their first atomic bomb in 1949, probably a decade earlier than if we had not been the victims of Communist spies in our own atom program.

In any case, I am seriously skeptical of the notion that this is a deal put together (especially with Democrats Carter and Clinton involved ) motivated by paying off political buddies. This simply doesn't resemble that, and whatever the motivation is, it's something besides that.

I tend to agree. I don't think this is necessarily a "pay off buddy" deal, I quite frankly think the President has begun to believe his own rhetoric about "Islam is a religion of peace". Any Christian who simply observes what the REAL God's Word says about "by their fruits you shall know them", ought to realize that Islam is nothing but a satanic death cult which incorporates a few christian "principles" to make it appealing to the masses, but it denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that automatically qualifies as being the "spirit of antichrist".