Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Says He Will Veto Any Bill to Stop UAE Port Deal
FOXNews.com ^ | Tuesday, February 21, 2006 | FOXNews.com

Posted on 02/21/2006 12:56:16 PM PST by Jeremiah2911

WASHINGTON — In a rare display of his veto authority President Bush said Tuesday he will put the kibosh on any legislation that attempts to stop the purchase by a United Arab Emirates-owned firm of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs six major U.S. ports.

Breaking a gaping silence during the debate of the purchase by Dubai Ports World, Bush said the deal should go forward and won't jeopardize U.S. security.

Officials from the Cabinet departments that participate in the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which approved the sale last Monday, are appearing in a briefing Tuesday afternoon to defend the process by which CFIUS reviewed and approved the deal.

Officials from the Treasury, Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security will participate.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush43; bushbots; dhimmialert; homelandsecurity; rino; selloutprez; term2; uae; veto
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 341-350 next last
To: untrained skeptic

They're not putting the fox in charge of the hen house, but they are giving him an office in the hen house...


241 posted on 02/21/2006 2:26:42 PM PST by GOPJ (Quisling editors show all the nobility of crack whores over cartoon publication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: go-ken-go
"I missed Rush's show... what was his take on the deal?"

Only heard a few minutes.

Maybe the alternative is to have Halliburton manage the ports, but the Democrats would holler too much, so he is going to make them insist upon it. That was at about 12:15, I heard no more of the program. I'm not even certain that I got that part accurate.

242 posted on 02/21/2006 2:28:09 PM PST by Radix (I really love the liberals, they put the FUN in funerals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Lexington Green
Guess the war is over. Ya-hoo!

Thanks for the chuckle.

243 posted on 02/21/2006 2:28:34 PM PST by processing please hold (Be careful of charity and kindness, lest you do more harm with open hands than with a clinched fist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Bommer

Yes! Veto wasted billions in pork bills? No way. Veto campaign finance bill? No sir! Veto a gutted and wasteful education bill written by Ted Kennedy? Absolutely not! Veto anything? No! But wait, now that there's a measure that might prevent a state with strong ties to terrorism from gaining access to our ports -- hell yes! Out of conviction and principle I'm going to veto my first bill!! Carl says I should have a photo op when I do. So what if 9 million containers come into ports and only 6% are inspected. So what if a container could hold ten dirty bombs. UAE is harmless because it only had one hijacker on 9/11. So what if it occasionally supports and launders money for terrorists. So what if it recognizes the Taliban as rightful ruler in Afghanistan and hates Israel. After all, the UAE had the lowest bid -- the secret cabal in Treasury that approved the deal told us so. Who cares about security when it comes bidding! This is none of congress' business!


244 posted on 02/21/2006 2:29:47 PM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BubbaTheRocketScientist

Would this be his first veto?

I don't know but veto's can be overridden by congress. This is one that should be overridden, if he vetos it.


245 posted on 02/21/2006 2:30:10 PM PST by chainsaw ( ("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - H. Clinton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Ref: minority status. I agree with you, people need to take a breath. All the Freepers saying Bush is "bought and paid for" or is "covering for someone", need to take off the tin foil hat, you're starting to sound like the Moonbats over on moveon.org.


246 posted on 02/21/2006 2:34:30 PM PST by teddyballgame (red man in blue state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
We don't *know* if this is good for America or bad for America- what we do *know* is that President Bush *knows* if it is good or bad for America...

So, based upon previous experience with President Bush, you either trust him to get the job done- or you think he is handing over the security of the United States to our enemy and pocketing some huge personal profit.

That is the only thing people should be talking about-the rest is hot air.

247 posted on 02/21/2006 2:34:32 PM PST by Diva Betsy Ross (Embrace peace- Hug an American soldier- the real peace keepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Canard

None whatsoever! Brit owned company....Muslim govt owned company. No reason for red flags. We've been attacked by Brits at least as many times as we've been attacked by Muslims in the last 30 yrs. No worries at all.


248 posted on 02/21/2006 2:36:57 PM PST by abigailsmybaby ("This is the sort of English up with which I will not put." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: spyone
Good for Bush, I agree with him. He outlined the reasons perfectly.

Someone who has Lady Thatcher's attention must be lurking. Would she not talk some sense into our President. Please.

ML/NJ

249 posted on 02/21/2006 2:39:28 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Diva Betsy Ross

Blind trust in any man is a mistake..


250 posted on 02/21/2006 2:40:24 PM PST by N3WBI3 (If SCO wants to go fishing they should buy a permit and find a lake like the rest of us..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: teddyballgame
Port Security is being handled by a US company (period).

Oh honestly. In addition to ignoring Dubai's direct ties to terrorist funding, transit, and facilitation, you trot out this nonsense.

The notion that terminal operators are some kind of isolated (and apparently excess) middle-men without responsibility for port security, cargo tracking and verification, and the vetting of personnel is so patently false that I'm truly surprised at its constant repetition as a talking point.

Operator cooperation is integral to effective port security. The Canadian PIP program, the US Customs CIS program, the Container Seal Verification Regime (CSVR), and the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC), are just a few of the security regimes that require operator initiative, cooperation, and reporting.

As a small example, TWIC, a uniform personnel credentialing procedure, will vet the identity and background of individuals with access to cargo and to secure areas of a marine cargo handling facility. It is implemented by the operator pursuant to explicit operator duties under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. The duties under the 2002 Act include requirements that marine cargo handling facility operators submit facility security plans designating "secure" areas of the facility for control of access by vessels, vehicles and individuals.

These procedures (PIP, CIS, CSVR, TWIC) are designed with the intention of operator participation, and include essential site security procedures and mandates directly imposed on the operator. Properly vetted personnel at domestic facilities, secure rail and land connections with terminals, container content verifications, etc. are nothing to be sneered at or lightly dismissed.

Heck, even DP World stated explicitly that "We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," making this claim that DP World will have no responsibility for security a truly bizarre little piece of spin.

The UAE has been unable (or, more likely, unwilling) to police its domestic companies and financial institutions, which have an ignoble history of providing terrorism funding, transit, and logistics. There is no good reason to believe that a state owned company of the UAE will be somehow free from the same manipulations.

The more difficult it is to smuggle or deliver devices, materials, or fungibles to an end destination, including a port itself (which is, after all, a perfect target in many instances due to immediate proximity to chemical and petroleum storage and refining), the better off we are. That's the whole point of efforts to assure container, site, personnel, and land transfer security, and the whole point behind integrating domestic, trustworthy operators into these security procedures.

251 posted on 02/21/2006 2:41:02 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: JSteff
The mob has left the station and is burning down the town.
252 posted on 02/21/2006 2:42:05 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 (Our enemies act on ecstatic revelations from their god. We act on the advice of lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
I didn't say it was blind trust..

For example:I didn't say I was willing to trust the president on the matter of picking out my new room color-but on matters of National Securty- yup, I will trust.

Time will tell who is right. I am going with the Prez.

253 posted on 02/21/2006 2:43:14 PM PST by Diva Betsy Ross (Embrace peace- Hug an American soldier- the real peace keepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Diva Betsy Ross
So, based upon previous experience with President Bush, you either trust him to get the job done- or you think he is handing over the security of the United States to our enemy and pocketing some huge personal profit.

Previous experience with him is not favorable. His bizarre hostility to border security has not recommended him well.

254 posted on 02/21/2006 2:44:01 PM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Well I will give you that. On its face I do not agree with his immigration platform. However~ for me it seems logical to assume there is an underlying game which benefits us in the War on Terror going on there.

Why do I feel that way, you may ask.... because I believe in the man and I believe that he does not lead our troops to fight and die on foreign land when he is going to open the back door for terrorists to come and kill us.

Granted- I am not a great strategic mind. That is why I voted for the President to do it for me.

255 posted on 02/21/2006 2:50:51 PM PST by Diva Betsy Ross (Embrace peace- Hug an American soldier- the real peace keepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: inquest

If this deal goes through and we have a couple of nukes go off in the US, we'll know who to blame, if there's any of us left to cast blame that is.


256 posted on 02/21/2006 2:51:57 PM PST by processing please hold (Be careful of charity and kindness, lest you do more harm with open hands than with a clinched fist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: StephenFrancis
We need to back the President up without question. I'm sure that he knows what he's doing better than you or I do.

You mean on the Panama Canal give away?

You mean on not taking action in Rwanda?

You mean, like Kosovo?

Or does the NAME/PARTY of the president make all the difference?

In FIVE MINUTES he has undone TWENTY YEARS of work on my part, getting my my wife to actually enthusiatically VOTE FOR a Republican presidential (and do so a second time, as well) candidate...her last one, too, I fear.

257 posted on 02/21/2006 2:53:21 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Mad-Mo! Allah bin Satan commands ye: Bow to him 5 times/day: Head down, @ss-up, and fart at Heaven!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

There's a couple here who believe that until there is evidence that this deal would make any difference to security, this is the flow of capitalism at work. I don't believe in government intervention unless security is compromised...regulations based on feelings or perception and politics should be left to extreme activists and dems (usually the same people anyway).


258 posted on 02/21/2006 2:53:38 PM PST by soloNYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig

"Its the old Statue of Liberty play. Bush fakes to the UAE, dems and pubs revolt and demand Halliburton gets the deal, then Bush caves in despair and gives it to Halliburton."

Pretty funny. I just KNOW there is some Rove-o-dope going on. Yours is as good as any speculation.


259 posted on 02/21/2006 2:57:00 PM PST by Sunnyflorida ((Elections Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: spyone

I'm with Bush on this also. One reason is the ignorance of the opposition. Did anybody hear the Chicoms OWN the Panama Canal? WOW!

This story is NOT over.


260 posted on 02/21/2006 2:59:46 PM PST by Sunnyflorida ((Elections Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 341-350 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson