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.

[pgkdan]

What's the rest of the story? The UAE is our biggest ally in the region and we have a CIA base there.

Bullshit. Israel is our ONLY ally in the region. Pretending that any arab islamic country is our ally is inviting a knife in the back.

[spinestein]

[I quite frankly think the President has begun to believe his own rhetoric about "Islam is a religion of peace".]



I hope you're wrong, but I admit it may just be possible that the typical placating ambassador-speak the president is expected to give in public has begun to influence his judgment of his enemies.

[ozzie]

Maybe all that is true. I just don't think anyone has the facts to judge this just yet. I forced myself to watch Matthews tonight and even he was ambivalent and couldn't seem to make up his mind on the matter. BTW, that previous poster that called me a "bushbot" seem to have made up his mind on the matter.

[pgkdan]

Criminy!!! Sometimes it's hard to be a Bush supporter. He signs Campaign Finance Reform and threatens to veto THIS! Sometimes I wonder...Bush really has a huge blind spot when it comes to islam. I've argued with others who claim that Bush is making excuses for the Saudis because they're family friends...now I wonder.

[daybreakcoming]

Surely there are injuries with all the kneejerking flapping around here. :o) And it is mostly based on "feelings" rather than facts which I thought made conservatives different.

Little Tasha is doing great. She is happily taking turns sleeping with my girls and I am happily sleeping without listening to her "weeping". lol Yep, she's spoiled.

[NYorkerInHouston]

After reading a couple of the threads and thinking about things a bit I would propose as an educated guess the following:

1) The US is considering plans to invade or bomb Iran if negotiations fail.

2) If that were to occur the second worse thing that could occur (the first being Iranian use of a nuclear device) would be if the Iranians could successfully prevent oil tankers from going through the Straits of Hormuz. The removal of 13 million barrels of day from the world markets would be quite a shock to the world economies.

As can be seen from this graphic, UAE along with part of Oman is on one side of the Straits if Hormuz. Iran is on the other.

My guess is that we would benefit by having access to fields on UAE and likely Oman as well to support our ships trying to keep the strait safe for oil tankers in the event of conflict, perhaps for additional landing fields for planes and/or for antimissile batteries.

Though I don't think a deal was ever present (port control for bases) if the port deal doesn't go through the UAE government may be unwilling to allow the US to make use of UAE soil in the event of conflict with Iran. Certainly UAE would be making itself a potential target. Perhaps the potential for refusal has been privately communicated to the Bush administration by the UAE government.

[TBP]

The threat to our national security is clear because the people in charge are employees of a government that supports terrorism. Tehy're much more likely to hve people look the other way (or go inspect over there, please) than a company from a friendly country.

But these ports should be managed by US companies.

[spinestein]

After looking at this for the past week, I'm more convinced than ever that this port deal has nothing to do with national security. It simply won't make a difference safety-wise whether the deal goes through or not because there won't be any changes in the way the security procedures are handled.

This is just an issue of the government continuing its agenda of promoting globalization and free trade which it has done since H. Bush, then with Clinton and continuing to W. Bush.

If you look at the people who support this and then look at the people who oppose this, they all line up exactly the same way as they do on the issues of NAFTA and GATT, and for the same reason.

As usual, the McJournalists in this country have misrepresented this to the public by trying to convince people that if the port deal happens, then two weeks later Mohammad J. Terrorist is going to be sitting in a crane unloading nuclear bombs in a shipping container and putting them on a truck to New York.

I'm not going to jump on the paranoia bandwagon that the media wants me to ride every time they get bored and don't feel like reporting real news.

[TBP]

After looking at this for the past week, I'm more convinced than ever that this port deal has nothing to do with national security. It simply won't make a difference safety-wise whether the deal goes through or not because there won't be any changes in the way the security procedures are handled.

In order for the port managers to do their jobs, they have to know what is in the containters and where they are being shipped, to what port on what day and on what ship. If there are any bad guys on their end, they can ship dangerous materials and alter the manifest.

The UAE is a conduit for Libyan and Iranian nuke money, a center for drug running and money laundering, one of three countries to recognize the Taliban, a country that refuses to recognize Israel, a funder of Al Qaeda (at least in the past), and a known sponsor of terrirsts. It was the home of Marwan Al-Shehi. That is not a country I want in a position to manage our ports, which are simply our borders along the water.

[TBP]

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.

True. So we need to start building refineries and drilling our own oil.