Posted on 02/22/2006 3:54:45 AM PST by LouAvul
WASHINGTON - Lawmakers determined to capsize the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates said President Bush's surprise veto threat won't deter them.
Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration's earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.
The sale's harshest critics were not appeased.
"I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it," said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.
Another Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, urged his colleagues to force Bush to wield his veto, which Bush — in his sixth year in office — has never done. "We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we're really doing is securing the safety of our people."
The White House and supporters planned a renewed campaign this week to reassure the public the sale was safe. Senior officials were expected to explain at a press conference Wednesday what persuaded them to approve the deal, the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a foreign, state-owned company.
The sale — set to be completed in early March — would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Bush said.
Defending his decision, Bush responded to a chorus of objections this week in Congress over potential security concerns in the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
Bush's veto threat sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Schumer.
To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.
A senior Homeland Security official, Stewart Baker, said U.S. intelligence agencies were consulted "very early on to actually look at vulnerabilities and threats."
Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. "We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.
Maryland's Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, during a tour of Baltimore's port, called the deal an "overly secretive process at the federal level."
Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado. He also stopped to talk before television cameras after he returned to the White House.
"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."
A senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal. Chief operating officer Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports "will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals."
Bilkey traveled to Washington in an effort to defuse the growing controversy.
Bush said protesting lawmakers should understand that if "they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."
Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.
Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, and Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said they would introduce a "joint resolution of disapproval" when they returned to Washington next week. Collins heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Harman is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
Bush's veto threat didn't stop local efforts to block the deal. New Jersey's governor, Jon S. Corzine, said the state will file lawsuits in federal and state courts opposing the agreement. Corzine, a Democrat, cited a "deep, deep feeling that this is the wrong direction for our nation to take."
Guess I was confusing Singapore with Jakarta.
this is a loose, loose situation for 'W'....he needs to pick his battles and IMHO this aint one of 'em.
You make valid points. I'm not saying GW should make policy with the polls as sole criterion.
As someone who has been in public relations for the past 25 years, I can say that one cannot simply say, "Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead!"
Whomever the POTUS has as his PR people/advisors need to be canned. Because this is a public relations nightmare.
If nothing else, it is giving the Rats a platform. And in politics, perception is everything.
Well, we cannot ATTACK IRAN from Singapore. How blind have people become?
It's coming, WWIII. Bush knows it, everyone that needs to know within our government knows it, and yet the sheeple are led aroung by clintoon, schumer, and the msm. Amazing!
LLS
No your facts are wrong. The 45 day review is required only if a company doesn't pass the inital 30 day review and this one passed fine.
Facts are important on this one.
President Bush is not a law breaker.
We don't need the UAE in order to attack Iran.
PS. And if we did, it could be occupied in about two days, maybe three.
I don't dispute your points. But my money is on a veto override. And it'll be all because Bush is an arrogant non-communicative SOB. Harriet Miers redux.
This ammendment makes the 45-day mandatory, not optional:
Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:
o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and
o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
The friedship of the UAE is so strategically important that we need to have them overseeing some of our major ports.
We agree on WWIII, anyway.
My prediction is that some kind of further review will take place. During that time, conservatives will become more educated about what leasing a terminal involves and will be mollifed. Thus, no override will be needed.
That too!
Too late!
Although I am still not convinced this deal represents a true threat to security when the emotion is stripped from it and it is viewed dispassionately, I also see no way for Bush to persuade the American public to his position. This is the election issue democrats have been praying and sacrificing to their sick and twisted god for, and they will ride it with all their energy from now through November.
We can live without Dubai's controlling our ports. We cannot survive a resurgent democrat majority in Congress and a Hillary presidential win in 2008. Frist and Hastert have got to get out ahead of this and stay out ahead of it and rally the Republicans in the Senate and the House to lead the effort to defeat it. We cannot concede the larger and more important battle to the democrats.
I think you might mean that as sarcasm, but the friendship of the UAE is really not all that strategically important. I am not saying that we should dismiss the UAE or reject their friendship, but simply that it's not true that the UAE is particularly important. it's a convenience of course, as it's always more convenient for someone to be a friend rather than a foe, but we could get along just fine even if the UAE was our mortal enemy (which wouldn't be an especially wise move on their part).
Thanks for the info.
I'm not sure that the is controlled by Dubai. I have heard that 50% of the company is Dutch-owned.
We did not get out of the Cold War undamaged. Much of the roots of the Islamic War were established during the cold War, and yes, we mightily facilitated the rise of Islamism by aiding the Afghans against the Russians. That aid was really the final blow that ended the Soviet empire and now we are dealing with the fallout. I don't think we could have avoided that development and the long years of Bush I who had a sharp shortsighted worldview and then the fop Clinton prevented that problem being dealt with in any sort of timely fashion. Clinton or BI could have cut the Islamists off at the knees with minimal effort but BI had no vision and Clinton had no concept of anything beyond his imediate personal needs.
Who is/was Alitto?
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.