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."
The missile launchers that surround the port in Abu Dhabi, can easily reach Iran.
But Iran through an act of war, could close it off, no?
The missile launchers on our aircraft carriers can reach Iran even more easily.
Yes, Iran could try to close off the Strait of Hormuz (and almost certainly would try if American & Iran were at war) but either way the UAE would be of little consequence.
The Bush spin machine took a few moments to get up to speed, but all the arguments are in place now for why we shouldn't care about turning the ports over to the UAE.
True, but I doubt we would want to put carriers in the gulf, if we are at war.....better to have the retaliation hit foreign soil.
You don't win a war by kicking your allies in the nuts.
I agree that much of what we're having to deal with today is the result of the fall of Communism in Russia, and shortsighted policies in the Middle-East. BTW, when you include presidents who have not served us with vision, don't forget to include Carter.
In any event this has been the most enjoyable thread I've engaged in for some time, and I believe you are to be thanked for that. It's refreshing to read some thoughtful comments instead of the everyday 'shoot-from-the-hip' commentary one often sees.
Please get back to me on the 'next war' issue. I'd really like that clarified.
I don't see some of the actions of the past that contributed to the problems of the present as being miscalculations. They were necessary in the conflict then at hand. That one had to be won even if it set up a further conflict. The error was in not following up in Afghanistan and well, that was when Clinton took the helm.
If the cartels could become that powerful, and their source of income is illegal drugs, then the logical solution, to quickly put an end to them, is to make the drugs legal and they will have no income.
Stop being logical .It's not appreciated
That's what I suspected as I stated in my response to your post #119. I suppose the problem I have with such a policy (to allow the states to take control over the border issue until the WOT is...let's say 'contained')...if it is indeed an administration policy, is that our border issue is a Federal problem, and if Bush wishes the states to take control of a Federal issue then he should have worked with the governors instead of leaving them come to such a conclusion on their own.
Your conclusions regarding the implosion of Communist Russia and the resultant problems with the Middle-East are not hard at all to understand, and on the mark in my estimation.
As is often the case, we look at things in the short term and give little attention to long term political affect. This is a general failing of humanity. That's where real leaders (what's that?) stand out.
Thanks for an enjoyable thread.
Once again politicos are speaking without the grasp of the facts, or any knowledge of shipping, port operations and port security. Most if not all of them have never been on a ship, never been involved with cargo and port operations, or have any idea how they are accomplished and who is responsible for the various operations, including security. But knowledge does not make good sound bytes.
Sorry...how's this
WE"RE ALL DOOOOMED!!!
That is certainly a logical approach. Unfortunately it seems to be not in the cards.
Well, I did my part.
Our alliance with Russia in WWII is of the same nature but with so far apparently more serious consequences. The wartime alliance was deemed necessary at the time and should have been made. The error was in not following up a la General Patton's desire to keep rolling east. Neither FDR nor Truman were up to that.
To call that bumbling, arrogant collection of incompetents a 'machine' is an insult to machines everywhere.
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.