Posted on 02/28/2006 1:44:53 PM PST by Paul Ross
|
 |
||
| UPDATE 1-Amid dispute, Bush still backs Dubai ports deal
(Adds comments from Frist, new legislation from Bayh) By Caren Bohan and Susan Cornwell WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Tuesday stood by his support for allowing a Dubai-based company to run terminals at six major U.S. ports, as lawmakers raised concerns about a Coast Guard report on security issues. "If there was any doubt in my mind or people in my administration's minds that our ports would be less secure or the American people in danger, this deal wouldn't go forward," Bush said, as the U.S. Congress held another day of hearings on the contested takeover bid. Facing a bipartisan uproar over the agreement to have state-owned Dubai Ports World manage terminals at ports including New York and New Jersey, the White House agreed on Sunday to a new, 45-day security review of the deal. At the end of it, Bush will have to authorize or reject the agreement. As of Tuesday afternoon, the new review had not begun, a Treasury Department spokeswoman said. Bush did not repeat his threat to veto any legislation to block the takeover deal, but aides said his position had not changed. The takeover by the United Arab Emirates-based company pushed Bush's approval rating to an all-time low of 34 percent, according to a new CBS News poll. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican who asked that the deal be put on hold last week, said he felt "a greater comfort level" with the takeover now that he had received more information. He also said he would not let any related legislation on the Senate floor while the new inquiry is under way. But other lawmakers continued to voice concerns about the deal, which critics say could make it easier for militants to attack the United States. Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana, introduced new legislation requiring greater scrutiny of business deals involving foreign countries. A bipartisan group of senators had introduced legislation on Monday to give Congress the power to block the deal.
INTELLIGENCE REVIEW Senators at an Armed Services Committee hearing pressed top intelligence officials about a U.S. Coast Guard report late last year that said "intelligence gaps" made it hard to assess if the takeover presented security concerns. Vice Admiral Terry Cross, vice commandant of the Coast Guard, said in a statement on Tuesday that his agency's initial review had identified the gaps but additional information and assurances it had received confirmed the takeover did not pose a significant threat. "In fact, the Coast Guard will have more information about the affected terminals under DPW ownership than it currently does under P&O's ownership," he said. Intelligence chief John Negroponte told the hearing that his own team's intelligence review was submitted Dec. 5, 2005, about a week before the Coast Guard report. "On the basis of our inquiry we assessed that the threat to U.S. national security posed by DP World to be low. And we did not see any red flags come up during the course of our inquiry," Negroponte said. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said senators had heard from several sources that U.S. Customs also had expressed security concerns. He declined to identify the sources. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican and chairwoman of the Homeland Security committee that made the Coast Guard document public on Monday, said she thought the administration had rushed to judgment in deciding in the company's favor. (Additional reporting by Caroline Drees)
|
|
|
|
|
||
Sorry, I wrote ports, but meant terminals.
My thoughts exactly.
The other two issues I have with this is:
1. The message it sends our soldiers, and
2. Why wasn't a law passed on 9/12 that would require Homeland Security (at least!) approval of any deal involving transfers of ownership of ports, airports, etc.
Pardon me, time for yet another reality check her. The shoe is on the other foot. It is you who are cavalierly justifying a foreign government's takeover of a private enterprise. You who are willingly undermining free enterprise.
"Power", that's what this is all about. The DemocRATS want to get power away from the Republicans. And, some Republicans are all too willing to give it to them. Would someone please put a sock in the mouth of Sen. Susan Collins? What a dweeb.
Mega dittos!!!
I was unaware that Chuck Schumer was a conservative...or HRC for that matter. You should start thinking about how you're going to climb back off that limb...or should we call the Fire Dept?
He's admitting there is a threat, but it's low.
I don't think you win a lot of support by saying there is a threat, low or otherwise.
Yeah, in New Jersey, I think. Probably other places too.
links? No. Just my feeble memory from those days. It was posted here at Free Republic. Maybe others have the details. Sorry.
At the same time, Israel has voted with the US: 100% in 2004, 92.9% in 2003, 92.6% in 2002, 100% in 2001, 96.2% in 2000.
Well, I guess you do have to give credit to Bush for being consistant -- unlike the John Kerryesque wing of FR (and Bill Frist) who voted against handing over our ports to Dupai... before they voted for it.
It must be really cold where you are.
It's been said probably close to 1,000 times now.
THE PORT DEAL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.
It must be really cold where you are.
It's been said probably close to 1,000 times now.
THE PORT DEAL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.
NO PORTS NOR APIRPORTS ARE BEING SOLD!
"After 9/11 and the USS Cole, the UAE provided us with info and helped us catch the conspirators. "
9/11 and the Cole were several years apart. UAE continued recognition of the Taliban and their ports were shipping points for nuclear weapons materials being sent to N. Korea and Pakistan, etc.
Yes. The threat assessments need to be broken down, at the least in confidential sessions of Congress, explaining how they think they can circumvent the problem of jihadist infiltration.
How many shipping container ports do they have on the US-Mexican border....muy mucho amigo...muy mucho
First, Thanks for the photo. Earth-Art. Beautiful.
Second, thanks for the info. So, how many and what companies manage them, and who provides security for those areas would be the questions the American Public should ask, before going off half-cocked on the change of overseas management staff due to a buyout.
The I in IBM doesn't stand for American.
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.