Posted on 02/21/2006 3:26:05 PM PST by bikepacker67
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush rejected congressional pressure to step in and suspend an Arab company's takeover of operations at major U.S. seaports on Tuesday and vowed to veto any legislation to block the deal.
"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters aboard Air Force One. If Congress passed a law to stop the deal, "I'll deal with it with a veto."
The port operations erupted as a major political headache for Bush, whose fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill joined Democrats in questioning the deal.
Senate Republican leader Bill Frist added his voice to Capitol Hill outcry against the decision allowing state-controlled Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates to manage ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
"If the administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review," Frist, a Tennessean and potential 2008 presidential contender, said in a statement.
Frist's decision to join the fray was significant because as majority leader he sets the Senate's agenda. Other lawmakers from both parties said they already had legislation ready to go to block the decision by a Treasury-led interagency panel known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Along with state and local officials from the affected areas, the lawmakers were indignant about the deal's impact on the ports, considered vulnerable since the September 11 attacks. Dubai Ports World is on the verge of taking over Britain's P&O, which now manages the ports.
"It's hard to believe that this Administration would be so out of touch with the American people's national security concerns, that it would use its first ever veto to save this troubling Dubai ports deal," said New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer
Bush said he was trying to conduct a fair foreign policy.
"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a great British company," Bush said.
"I'm trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world 'we'll treat you fairly.'"
"And after careful scrutiny, we believe this deal is a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country and at the same time sends that signal that we are willing to treat people fairly."
Schumer and Republican Rep. Peter King of New York vowed to try and block the deal legislatively as soon as Congress is back in town on Monday. King is chairman of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee.
A similar hail of criticism from American lawmakers last year drove off a bid by China's state-controlled CNOOC Ltd. for American oil company Unocal.
Officials from several Bush administration departments defended the Dubai Ports World decision.
Treasury spokesman Tony Fratto said all the administration members of the committee on foreign investment, including the Department of Homeland Security, agreed the transaction could proceed.
State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said a risk assessment by the U.S. intelligence community and decided there was no objection on national security grounds.
At the Justice Department, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stressed the deal had only to do with the management of port operations -- not security.
At the Pentagon, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace defended the United Arab Emirates as a close ally of the United States.
P&O shareholders last week approved Dubai Ports World's $6.8 billion takeover, which would create the world's third-largest ports group. A British court is expected to give its final approval at a hearing scheduled for February 27.
A UAE government official said the security concerns were unfounded given his country's close ties with Washington and Dubai Ports' record as global operator. U.S. warships often call at the UAE's Jebel Ali port, run by Dubai Ports.
U.S. seaports handle 2 billion ton(ne)s of freight a year. Only about 5 percent of containers are examined on arrival.
This isn't about 'political correctness'. This is about crony capitalism and 'free trade at all costs' globalism.
This is absolutely not the point to dig your heels in and make a stand. Bush is exhibiting the same pigheaded stubbornness he did over Harriet Miers because he puts his buddies first.
Uh.....Keep Your Friends Close, Your Enemies Closer?
That's a very good question.
Particularly to the liberals spearheading this.
There's a good argument against it, but it's mostly because the Dubai company is too closely tied to its government.
If this is a Muslim country then most of its citizenry either support al-Qaeda or admire and respect it. Don't buy any bull about 'moderate Muslims'. All the 'moderate Muslims' ever say is, "do what the extremists tell you to".
We just plain cannot trust Muslim countries with vital security functions. Is that clear enough for you ?
You notice what is missing from all the ports mentioned?
The Port of Hampton Roads, the third largest port in the US, P&O have a large presence at this particular port, and this particular port just happens to be located in the largest Naval Base in the world.
So, Dubais gets the contract for Hampton Roads, too?
Why isn't this mentioned since P&O is already a presence...
No, but this will open up a can of worms for the Democrats. They won't be able to maintain their profiling position on this one.
If this billion dollar company might be a security risk then all Muslims entering this country might be a security risk and we shouldn't allow entry. It also means that those who are already here are a security risk so why should we take a chance by letting them remain here?
The mass migration of Muslims into the US is far more dangerous than an Arab company at a port. If a Republican Congressman offers up legislation today to cease all migration from Arab countries, it would be nearly impossible for Democrats to stand against it.
Whoever is the GOP candidate in 2008 will have to put some distance between himself and Bush. That is reality.
"P&O is a big player in the U.S. port business, operating marine cargo stations in New York, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. P&O also owns half of Norfolk's CP&O Ports Virginia, the largest stevedoring service in Hampton Roads. That firm hires workers to load containers on and off vessels stopping at state-owned terminals and other docks. Given that ports still are widely seen as a weak link in America's anti-terrorism efforts - a possible entry point for terrorists and their weapons - Allen, R-Virginia urged a committee to "carefully and thoroughly" review its earlier decision."
http://www.dailypress.com/business/local/dp-73221sy0feb17,0,4851835.story?coll=dp-business-localheads
This is even more stupid than when Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal. No wonder Carter supports Bush on this...It bumps him from the #1 spot on the greatest tactical presidential errors of all time list.
Well, I'll say this for the Bush family - when they're bought they stay bought.
Dubya's relationship with the Arabs (and the Mexicans for that matter) is a national embarassment.
[We just plain cannot trust Muslim countries with vital security functions.]
Do you mean like we can't trust Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia to perpetually provide us with secure bases of military operations? The bottom line is, in this case, a literal "bottom line". If it's in a country's material interest to behave in a certain way, then we can trust them to do so.
[Is that clear enough for you?]
Yes. I read, write and understand English very well.
Bush? Veto? Don't make me laugh.
"you gotta have heart!..........."
THIS IS ONLY A WAY OF LOCATING THOSE PESKY WMD'S. THINK MY MAN IS 'SETTIN' A TRAP', SO TO SPEAK.
What's the big deal about turning our ports over to the Abu Dubies? We've already turned over the rest of the country to the illegal aliens.
You've asked for someone to explain this.
I'll give it a try.
America claims to be an ally of Israel, and indeed, President Bush has stated that we would defend Israel if Iran (for example) were to launch an attack.
The UAE (as already pointed out) is anti-Israel, has no diplomatic relations with Israel, was one of only a handful of nations to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and likewise (already pointed out), has been less than cooperative in tracking down Usama bin Laden and his cohorts.
I point these things out to first establish that the UAE is the WRONG choice so far as managing port operations for the United States, particularly when military equipment is going to be routed through those ports. That would be like authorizing a Nazi firm managed by Albert Speer to oversee the ports from which our troops and supply ships were using to keep the Allied war effort alive during WWII. It is quite frankly, an insane and indefensible position. The UAE is also the wrong choice based simply on the fact that IF the U.S. values human rights, and believes specifically in the human rights of every Israeli citizen, the UAE, which disdains Israel and makes no bones about it, becomes even more of a bad example in selecting it for this function.
Now for the most critical issue here: The UAW is a Muslim country (as everyone says "no duh"). While there may be many millions of Muslims who are not predisposed to violence or terrorist acts, there is simply no way to sort them out from those who are inclined to commit such acts. To return to the Nazi analogy, during World War II, there were no doubt many Germans who expressed their public horror at the misdeeds and crimes of Hitler, but how many of those Germans were secretly rooting for der Fuehrer, and would have shielded and assisted German espionage agents? The fact is, the Nazi ideology was a powerful tool of cultural seduction, it appealed to the German desire for a strong Fatherland, to right the wrongs of World War I and the disgrace suffered by Germany.
The ideology of Islam is many times more powerful than Nazism, it appeals to the spiritual desires within the heart of every Muslim, and while we might wish to accept the disavowals of violence we hear from some Muslims, we must take those disavowals not with a grain of salt, but with a whole box.
If we allow a Muslim nation (the UAE) to become an integral part of U.S. port operations, no matter the security safeguards which may be in place, we are inviting any number of clandestine agents, who may in fact proclaim their fervor for freedom, and curse al Qaeda day and night, all the while working behind the scenes to undermine the security of any given port, with disasterous consequences if they succeed.
Our problem in detecting such subterfuge is our lack of Arabic translators at every level of our federal government. It is not possible to eavesdrop all of the possible suspects with either "live" wiretaps, or electronic surveillance ala NSA, simply because we don't have the translators in sufficient numbers to sift through the data in a timely enough fashion. The Islamofascists who seek to destroy us might as well be aliens from another galaxy speaking some hybrid hexidecimal gibberish, because that is how difficult this task is.
Our only default position is to ban Muslim companies and nations from participating in critical U.S. defense functions. It isn't a question of discriminating against Arabs or adherents of the Muslim religion, it is a question of being unable to confirm that those who we would grant access to are in fact, good security risks.
If this were World War II, the benefits would be outweighed by the risks to our collective national security. In the post 9/11 world, with the real possibilities of chemical/biological or nuclear terrorism, the risks are simply too high to gamble with political correctness, high minded statements about "playing fair", and hoping that by inviting a potential fox into our henhouse, that the chickens will still be alive in the morning.
The President is wrong. That is the bottom line, and I regret to say that it appears that hubris has set in.
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.