Bush distances himself from ports deal

Herald Sun ^ | 23 February 2006

[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.

[mkjessup]

And exactly which one of those facts cited by Panaxanax struck you as particularly moronic?

[mylife]

And whos Gov are you gonna trust?

You are going to have a hardtime convincing me that the current Gov has been weak on terror.

[CyberAnt]

We have an air base being leased to us by UAE. It's vital to the war in Iraq. And .. if we should need to go into Iran .. it will be crucial.

The UAE has also recently passed some very strict regulation regarding harboring or assisting terrorists - they're now a crime in the UAE.

While the UAE is not perfect .. and no country is .. I can see why our President would believe this company can do the job as well as the British company did.

[Merlinator]

I respect your service in uniform to our country. But what does this deal have to do with moral abdication? This is nothing new, foreign intervention is part of many businesses from making beer to auto production. This has nothing to do with security or moral authority. It is simply the business operation of some ports. I would look much more critically at something like Citgo selling gasoline in the US since it is owned by Venezuela, therefore by Chavez. And I still believe this president would not compromise US security. If that makes me a "Bush-Davidian" so be it.

[swheats]

I definately don't blame Bush for Katrina's handling. My opinion on that is there's too many locals to blame before it reaches Washington.

I just haven't liked what I've heard til now concerning this deal. Amazingly those that have reported on this have no real facts to bring perspective that I've heard. I was of the mind this wasn't serious due to the timing of the announcement.

I have no trouble trusting Bush, it's those that he has empowered to act on his behalf troubles me. Maybe it's the fact of coming off the rollercoaster of hearing the news of the accidental shooting of Cheney's friend only to enter the merry-go-round of hearing of an "ARAB" government purchasing sensitive assets on the homeland.

As the world turns again we'll wait and see how this ends.

[beansox]

I just dont see what the big friggen deal is.

Its like saying we couldnt give it to the Italians because they have ties to the mafia. Its absurd. Im embarassed at the behavior of some.

[conservative physics]

In a post 9-11 world, no foreign government (especially a Muslim one) should be allowed to own or have control over any vital area of national security, such as our ports.

[bad company]

Now, this is getting a tad confusing...

That's because that's not what Bush said. This deal was in the papers 4 months ago. Bush said he didn't know the details of the deal until it was finalized.

[winker]

You miss the entire point of what I said to be on the lookout for from this administration and it has EVERYTHING and more to do with this country's survival. Trust is earned and there is a widening gap to bridge in this Country. The topic of discussion is best served when you consider "ALL" the possibilities we are faced with. The planned death of this nation started long before John Stormer's Book years ago explained but the direction and potential for disaster remains the same today.Don't kid yourself our enemies are reading our mail and much of it comes through the port system!

[SENTINEL]

It is too late for bush to distance himself from this.

This is the final act of border security failure.

Read my lips...NO MORE BUSHES !!

[SENTINEL]

Jeb doesn't stand a chance in any future election.

[Deo volente]

"I didn't hear about it, before I heard about it."

[lonestar67]

This is getting ridiculous. The entire world is completely Bush reactionary. There is no longer any intelligent discourse on national or international issues.

I wish Bush would just come out strong on how good breathing is for people and we could just get this nonsense over with.

[tlj18]

Doesn't really work. Like the Davidians, the BushBots have their own little quasi-religious personality cult going, but that doesn't mean we should start petitioning the Justice Department to burn down their houses.

But you can have their local governments seize their houses, thanks to SCOTUS/Eminent Domain.

:-(

[sure_fine]

Documents obtained by the AP show the Bush administration's conditions for approving a ports sale required a Dubai company to cooperate with future U.S. investigations and disclose internal operations records on demand...

from Drudge

[lawdog]

and for those who say that we will still control the SECURITY at the ports...yes that's true but the UAE will have access ..and ...

Since 9/11, Washington has spent billions of dollars on airport security. But the bigger terrorist threat may be at U.S. seaports.

No one knows for sure if terrorists have managed to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. But if they wanted to smuggle one into the United States, the best way to do it would be by sea, inside a shipping container.

Six million of them arrive in the United States every year, and ... only a tiny fraction of them are ever inspected.

[Marine_Uncle]

"...The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports,..."
OK. I am going to try to be as carefull as I can here. And believe me I do not have authoritative answers. I am just questioning the validity of how this stuff is being reported to us. Perhaps the grammatic contructs being used are throwing me off course. Or perhaps I am a moron. ha ha.
1) Michelle starts out by saying....."...Senator Lindsey Graham, Representative Peter King and numerous state politicians in calling on the Administration to stop a deal that would allow a United Arab Emirates company to manage six major U.S. ports."
MY RESPONSE: NO NO. The ports are owned by the state/cities they reside in not by companies either US based or foreign. So like so many other reporters, we are being mislead by that statement.
2) OK further down in her writing... "Chertoff's explanation on ABC's "This Week,"........ then he elaborates a bit....and says:
"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.
To me this sets off a warning. Firstly it tells me as other articles being posted today that we are seeing a simple transfer of ownership of terminal facilities. Now just so readers unfamiliar with what this means. A terminal is one operation at a port. One may have many companies at any given port that own terminals, and of course are responsible for managing the operations of that given terminal site. BUT none of them manage the port operations at the top. The security for instance for the port lies within the authority of the Port Authority. Say the Port of NY is responsible for the security of that port facility. The terminal owners may have internal security for their particular facilities but they do not run the port.
OK as I read through the article I come to the following part. Which in essence points out what I am getting at:
3) "Missing. The. Point. The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. They presumably wouldn't. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest."
Now we supposedly reach the point regarding all the fuzz. It is not over some foreign entity taking over our ports. But the issue is whether we can trust the United Arab Emirit's state owned Dubai Ports World that is attempting to buy out the British owned O&P, who then would carry on the operations the Brit company has manifested at these ports terminal facilities in question.
Nowever this is not what for the most part is being offered up in the L/MSM frenzy. They are making it sound like this foreign entity was going to take over our ports.
Which is totally misleading. DPW will be no less under the scrutiny of our port authority security and managment. They have to follow all the rules put forth by Homeland Security and all underling agencies such as the mentioned DOD.
The issue is if they can be trusted being a Arab owned company. Notice how little is mentioned in this article and the other articles posted thus far, that the American owned companies who contract out their services/dock workers etc., are the same ones that have worked all along for the Brit co. In other words, the Arab company is not going to bring in a bunch of Arab companies to replace what is actually at the ports doing the work.
That is a point I have been harping on for most of the day on these particular posts.
Sure DPW owns the terminal if it buys out O&P. But to what extent does it actually as a mother company influence what is already in place. It could have so little influence due to the current rules in place. It could simply be a transparent transfer of one mother company to another.
And example X co contracts Y co to do all its work for it, simply earning revenues by being the owner. Now X company is bought out by Z co. Z co. continues to utiliize Y co to do all the work. Z company simply does the top end bean counter work for all the co's it contracts with and it's subsideries. Z company does not change the rules. It simply skims of a portion of the profit.
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.
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. 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.

[oxcart]

ZOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT THIS WHOLE THREAD!

[I'm ALL Right!]

No confusion here. Lying. Straight up.

[Graymatter]

Jeb Bush's hoofprints are all over this fiasco. He put W up to it and told him it was good. Thank heavens Al Gore called the White House and explained to him that the little brother does not have the last word on this.