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."
I've made up my mind that deal is not finished, and I'm content to let existing laws and existing markets govern. I've decided that market should decide ownership, especially when it's in a US market. Hysterical politics is a side show. This deal should be allowed to stand on its merits without any new laws from old crazy Hilary.
Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge are probably the only presidents who have actually understood economics. Kennedy borrowed an insight from others and reduced taxes. Carter did the most immediate damage and FDR the most systemic damage. Actual Economics can only rarely be found as part of the toolkit of any major Leader. It is a tedious and boring subject and such people can't sit still long enough to learn it. With men like Bush you just have to hope that while saving the world they manage to not inflict too much damage on the economy. Unfortunately Bush has brought us vigourous inflation and more Fine Tuning. Keynesians tend to be sucked in by the greens eventually (those who don't start out that way). Bush is a "conservative" Keynesian in that he envisions results that free marketers and conservatives would support but Keynesian methods can only be counterproductive.
DPW bought P&O under UK laws and we have nothing to do with it. Our choices have to do with our government's oversight of operations under US jurisdiction. We have laws to maintain US security and they were followed. It would be a really bad idea for someone like old crazy Hilary to write new laws to screw up the deal after the fact.
Chinese nationals have committed far less violent attacks on Americans than have Arab nationals.
Maybe he was serious about that dictator thing. What was it he said? That it would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship, but only if HE was the dictator?
1) I don't know what I think about this whole issue of DP World running the ports.
2) Whether or not I support that deal it does not make the UAE any more militarily important than it is.
3) Al Qaeda is not Iran. You said Iran to begin with, not Al Qaeda.
4) US generals are not in the habit of gratuitously insulting friendly nations. Of course they won't say the UAE is of little consequence, whether or not it is.
5) As I already stated, it is always more convenient for a nation to be a friend than a foe, even if it doesn't much matter one way or the other.
Yes we do ...
OK, fine. Whatever.
but, they still have to pay taxes to us on the profits they make ( like I said before, if they make any )
There are a lot of new posters here. I doubt if all are conservatives.
Seems like books can be cooked pretty easy, especially when they belong to a foreign govt that we want to be our friend.
Even if it no big deal, and is blown out of proportion, the administration must realise how this is going to go down with the public...people tend to vote on how they perceive things, not necessarily on how things really are.
Love your tag line, change democrats to liberals, though........
Sounds like a Lincoln Chaffing quote....
This will be forgotten in about two weeks.
This is classic media-peddled confusion, crap and controversy, to quote Alan Simpson.
Schumer, PIAPS, and Buchanan are wrong. Bush, WSJ, and the Wash Post are correct. And Hastert and Frist are cowards.
"You need a potrzebie."
Now that was downright furshlugginer. I am so farshimelt!
:-)
"I don't remember any Chinese on the hijacked planes."
I DO remember the Chinese in Vietnam and Korea, and we're competing more and more with them for oil. My point is that if we're going to be so paranoid about this UAE company, isn't it a little strange not to be taking a hard look at operators like the Chinese?
In reality, I see no reason why this company shouldn't operate the terminals.
It is strange to me that if this is such a good deal, why has the President taken no measures to communicate with the American people exactly WHY this is a good deal.
Outside of "If I thought it was dangerous, it wouldn't go forward."
Which, frankly, amounts to "Just trust me," and following Harriet Miers and the open borders policy, rings very hollow.
We'll have to wait and see.
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.