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 ...
They're not putting the fox in charge of the hen house, but they are giving him an office in the hen house...
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.
Thanks for the chuckle.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Someone who has Lady Thatcher's attention must be lurking. Would she not talk some sense into our President. Please.
ML/NJ
Blind trust in any man is a mistake..
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.
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.
Previous experience with him is not favorable. His bizarre hostility to border security has not recommended him well.
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.
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.
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.
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).
"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.
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.
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.