Posted on 02/22/2006 4:19:34 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
THE White House sought to distance itself today from the US administration's approval of an Arab company's takeover of operations at major US ports, a day after President George W. Bush vowed to veto any legislation to block the deal.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president was not aware of the pending deal until it was approved and had become public but then checked with cabinet secretaries to make sure they stood by their approval of the plan by state-controlled Dubai Ports World to manage six ports.
Mr Bush held a rare news conference on Air Force One yesterday to say the deal should go forward despite lawmakers concerns it posed security risks and said he would veto legislation aimed at stopping it.
"He made sure to check with them (the cabinet) even after this got more attention from the press, to make sure they were comfortable with the decision that was made. Every one of the Cabinet secretaries expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction being approved," Mr McClellan said.
Mr McClellan said the president "became aware of it over the last several days".
Asked if Mr Bush did not know about the ports deal until it was a "done deal", he said, "That's correct".
The question of whether state-controlled Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates should be allowed to control the ports has sparked a political storm for Mr Bush at a time when he is struggling to boost sagging public approval ratings.
The White House continued a spirited defence of the deal, which has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike on Capitol Hill and vows to block the deal.
Mr McClellan said to not go forward with the deal would send a "terrible message" because it would hold a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a British company and because the United Arab Emirates has been a strong partner in the war on terrorism.
Rejecting the deal, he said, could have consequences.
"You have to take into account the broader foreign policy implications," he said. "We should be working to broaden our partnership in the broader war on terrorism."
Concerns about the vulnerability of US ports have grown since the September 11 attacks.
I don't see Bush distancing himself. What am I missing?
THE White House sought to distance itself today from the US administration's approval of an Arab company's takeover of operations at major US ports, a day after President George W. Bush vowed to veto any legislation to block the deal.
Stupid comment. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. The War on Terror is a smart or stupid thing. Either your smart and know we need to fight (like Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, John McCain; hardly liberals i know, but not conservatives by any definition) or your stupid and think we should just "get along" with the terrorists.
I agree with nearly everything the blonde said. Why do we all of a sudden swallow the CRAP the LameStream Media spews??? It is, on the whole, GARBAGE. Utter, putrid, vile and filthy garbage.
THIS IS THE SAME PRESS THAT ONE WEEK AGO TODAY WAS INSINUATING DICK CHENEY WAS A DRUNK!!
Give me a break.
This is a $7 BILLION dollar deal. Just follow the money and see who got paid off. I'm betting that there are some GOP heavy hitters who stand to make a great deal of money from this.
Only $7 Billion ?? Thats pocket change to an American such as Bill Gates ... so I propose this:
Since the main concern of this deal is about port security, why not offer the deal to an American company with expertise in port security, such as Microsoft ...... umm, ummmm ... well, never mind ........ /sarcasm off :)
Perhaps you should read ALL my posts and responses before accusing me of "just wanting to get along with the terrorists.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. President & CEO, The Center for Security Policy
"He said he found out about the purchase, which transfers operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia to the Persian Gulf company, last Tuesday in meetings with senior Bush administration officials." Now let us be carefull here. Notice he elaberates that operations are being transfered. NOT PORTS being sold.
DPW is purchasing P&O. Nobody said anything about purchasing the ports. P&O, a British (ally) company provided port operations. DPW, a UAE (not necessarily an ally, depending on who you believe) company wants to do the same thing.
But the issue is whether we can trust the United Arab Emirit's state owned Dubai Ports World...
Bingo.
That is what I think is happening here. And we are seeing a lot of kneejerking by all forms that are either not fully informed of what the deal is or they are playing politics or in some cases both scenarios.
Probably true. There is not enough concrete information out there and the White House has done NOTHING to help matters. Piss Poor PR. Good god! How did these people THINK we'd react?
Finally as voiced in some of the other posts, the UAE seems to be doing a lot to track and capture Islamic terrorist in their country.
Again, depends on who you believe.
They maintain huge port facilities obviously that ship a lot of gas and oil to this country. We maintain quite a friendly business level with them as well as them working with us on the war on terror. And we basically assure them Iran will not get away with sinking their ships or sending nukes by missles into their country to disrupt their oil/gas business. In short they are depending a lot on us to protect their country's interests. Now with this being the case. Are they going to allow terrorist to somehow infiltrate their operation and ruin all the good things they have going for them? Food for thought.
To me the question is, do We The People trust them enough to turn over major US port operations and all the knowledge and access that entails? At this point I'm not sold on that idea and the Bush Administration has done nothing at all to help change my mind. I don't think they've quite figured out that since 9/11 we are awake and paying attention. They'd better start explaining things and stop trying to slip these kinds of things past us. If this is all the information I'm going to get then I vote we err on the side of caution. No. I simply do not trust the UAE enough.
"The UAE is not exactly stuffed stem to stern with pro-American individuals; the idea that the emirs will stand foursquare against infiltration by those who have ulterior motives is the sort of wishful thinking that makes buildings fall and cities empty. I’m not worried that some evil emir is putting a pinky to his monocled eye, and saying Mwah! at last I have them where I want them! I’m worried about the guy who’s three steps down the management branch handing off a job to a brother who trusts some guys who have some sympathies with some guys who hang around some rather energetic fellows who attend that one mosque where the guy talks about jihad 24/7, and somehow someone gets a job somewhere that makes it easier for something to happen."
this is starting to look like a classic Bush rope-a-dope for the Dems
There are no friends, only interests.
Harriet Miers Event, Part II.
"So GW didn't know about it, but he appointed one of the major players to a government position, but he will veto any attempted legislation to quell the deal, but he only found out about the deal a few days ago."
Deserves a repost...my take on the matter, exactly!
Not to mention that as this news unfolds, Al Queda listens and considers.
Hahahahahaha
I'd agree with that.
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.