WTH is WRONG with him?
I can thing of 100 other times Bush should have used the veto pen (mostly budgetary) and did not.he spends like a drunken sailor and his favorite port of call seems to have questionable links.
ping
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.
I second that remark!!
Y'all have got to read this eye-opening article. Dubai close to operating ALL the major ports of the world.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1583017/posts?page=1
Yeah. What's up?
I must be missing something.
Perhaps Bush is trying to get his critics on record in favor of profiling?
In other words, this could be a Rove rope-a-dope.
Doesn't mean I believe it, but it is a possibility.
Flashback - December 13, 2004: Dubai, U.A.E., Joins U.S. Container Security Initiative (State Dept.)
US Department of State ^ | December 13. 2004
Posted on 02/21/2006 4:43:48 PM CST by new yorker 77
Becomes first Mideast port to participate in U.S. program
The United Arab Emirates has joined the U.S. Container Security Initiative (CSI) to help secure maritime cargo shipments against the threat of terrorism.
In a December 12 news release, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) said the agreement will enable all cargo destined for the United States through the port of Dubai to be prescreened.
CBP will station a small team of officers at Dubai ports to identify sea containers destined for the United States; Dubai customs officials will be responsible for screening containers identified as potential terrorist risks, the U.S. agency said.
Dubai Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation is the sixth-largest port operator in the world and the first in the Middle East to join the CSI, according to the news release.
To date, governments representing 21 countries around the world have signed up to the CSI program, launched by the United States following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Following is the text of the news release:
(begin text)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Department of Homeland Security
First Middle Eastern Port Formally Commits to Target, Pre-Screen and Secure Cargo Destined for the U.S.
12/12/2004
Dubai, UAE -- Today Dubai Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation joined the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Container Security Initiative [CSI] making it the first Middle Eastern port to participate. CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner and Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, Executive Chairman of the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation, signed a declaration of principles to acknowledge the agreement that will enable all cargo destined for the U.S. through the port of Dubai to be targeted and pre-screened.
"The threat of terrorism is real and, it's a global threat. Dubai Customs recognizes the absolute importance of protecting cargo against the terrorist threat. I applaud their bold action of assuming a leadership role in the Middle East," said Commissioner Bonner.
CBP will deploy a small team of officers to the port of Dubai, the 6th largest port operator in the world whose mission will be to target sea containers destined for the United States. Dubai Customs officials, working with CBP officers, will be responsible for screening any containers identified as a potential terrorist threat.
The primary purpose of CSI is to help protect the global trading system and the trade routes between CSI ports and the United States. By collaborating with foreign customs administrations, CBP is working towards a safer, more secure world trading system.
Under CSI, CBP has entered into bi-lateral partnerships with other governments to identify high-risk cargo containers and to pre-screen them before they are loaded on vessels destined for the United States. Today, governments representing 21 countries have signed up to implement CSI.
"I congratulate the Dubai Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation on this historic event. They are now partnering with the United States and are a leader in protecting the global trading system," said Ambassador to the UAE [United Arab Emirates] Michele Sison.
CSI did not exist before 9/ll. It was proposed by Commissioner Bonner and launched in January 2002. CSI has been accepted globally as a bold and revolutionary initiative to secure maritime cargo shipments against the terrorist threat. This initiative will continue to expand to strategic locations around the world.
The World Customs Organization (WCO), the European Union (EU), and the G8 [Group of Eight major industrialized economies] support CSI expansion and have adopted resolutions implementing CSI security measures introduced at ports throughout the world.
The 32 operational ports in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America include: Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver, Canada; Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Le Havre, France; Bremerhaven and Hamburg, Germany; Antwerp and Zeebrugge, Belgium; Singapore; Yokohama, Tokyo, Nagoya, and Kobe, Japan; Hong Kong; Goteborg, Sweden; Felixstowe, Liverpool, Southampton, Thamesport, and Tilbury, United Kingdom; Genoa, La Spezia, Naples, and Gioia Tauro, Italy; Busan, Korea; Durban, South Africa; Port Klang and Tanjung Pelepas, Malaysia; Piraeus, Greece; Algeciras, Spain; and Laem Chabang, Thailand.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with the protection of our nation's borders. CBP unified Customs, Immigration, and Agriculture Inspectors and the Border Patrol into one border agency for the United States.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
What's the rest of the story? 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.
Why stop there? Why hold Iran, a Middle Eastern country, to a different standard than a great Jewish country? Could it be that there is a fundamental difference?
Damned if I know, what I would like to hear is why it seems to be so damned neccessary, in the first place!
Are there absolutely NO alternatives, and, if so, WHY!
I just heard that it's now EIGHT ports, two of which are used by the Military.
That was my reaction exactly!
He's going to use his first veto to block a deal that has true bipartisan opposition and which strikes your average American a friggin' stupid.
Sometimes I wonder about that man.
/sorry, had to be done.
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.
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 Ladens 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.
That's a very good question.
Particularly to the liberals spearheading this.
There's a good argument against it, but it's mostly because the Dubai company is too closely tied to its government.
You notice what is missing from all the ports mentioned?
The Port of Hampton Roads, the third largest port in the US, P&O have a large presence at this particular port, and this particular port just happens to be located in the largest Naval Base in the world.
So, Dubais gets the contract for Hampton Roads, too?
Why isn't this mentioned since P&O is already a presence...