Posted on 02/22/2006 6:20:19 AM PST by Rennes Templar
President Bush yesterday vowed to use his first-ever veto to strike any law that Congress passes to block a deal allowing an Arab state-owned company to operate six major U.S. seaports, amid growing bipartisan efforts to thwart the plan for security reasons.
"If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," the president said in a brief but firm statement on the White House South Lawn.
Mr. Bush said questioning the deal because it involves United Arab Emirates company makes no sense, given that a British company now does the job.
"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. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly,'?" Mr. Bush earlier told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington from a Colorado event.
Republican congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert, among Mr. Bush's most reliable supporters, yesterday said giving operational control to a Middle Eastern country raises serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
You're certainly doing well at parroting the talking points. But that's simply not entirely true. Yes, the Coast Guard is ultimately supposed to be responsible. Does that mean it's the Coast Guard's fault if the port allows an OBL goon to smuggle something in? What could the Coast Guard possibly do about that?
"If you are a critic, precisely what process, and the focus is 100% on process here, would you have executed to select a winner from competitors to run the ports?"
How about, a process that excludes countries with strong ties to terrorism? Sure, UAE is an official ally, but its record on terror is mixed at best.
Guess what,a state owned Chinese company, China Ocean Shipping Company, already operates the Port of Long Beach container facility in a joint venture with an American firm, SSA.
I agree with that logic. On the other hand, they've really got balls, and we've really got balls if that's our logic. Nevertheless, my belief is "Yes, we really do have balls."
Methinks everyone, every one, is missing what is happening here.
This IS a military move by George. His firm attitude, digging in his heels, is all what he has done in the past.
Does anyone remember the AIDS aid to Africa "debacle" in his first term, that had his own party wanting to tar and feather him?
Most folks never knew what that was all about. Soldier of Fortune magazine was the only outlet to put it in perspective.
Because of all that money George sent to Africa, for the Aids fight, (of course) our special forces were able to conduct "training" in areas of that continent that we never, ever had access to, before that point in time. What a boon for the war on terror.
George NEVER let on. Only Robert Brown and his folks dug up the story.
I wonder why the Brits, who have had the concessions for so long, decided to sell now. I wonder why Dubai was selected.
I think there is way more to this deal than we will know right now.
The only thing I have to believe is this:
Klintoon made deals with foreigners to benefit himself.
George makes deals with foreigners to benefit America.
I'll wager money that there is a major quid pro quo going on here, and I hope Colonel Brown's boys can dig up the truth.
I look at this as a way to get ANWR opened. Notice how the DIMS started the rhetoric then quieted down? They did this to divide the Republicans. They did the same with Miers.
What the Dims forgot is that Bush is traipsing around the country giving his alternative fuel initiative a boost. Now if everyone is up in arms about the ports, why won't Bush just say, "ok, if we are so worried about the Arabs, then we should open ANWR and combined with alternative fuels, lessen our dependence on Saudi oil."
This would send two messages. 1) Are the RATS going to go against this, meaning that they are weak on national security and 2) Will the Saudis drop the price of oil?
This deal is once again a no-lose for Bush. Thanks go out to the little guy in the magical weather altering station somewhere deep underground in Texas.
Do you have some evidence that shows that companies (countries did not compete) with a history of court convictions/fines for aiding terror were not already excluded in the process executed? Isn't that likely to already be US law?
Should this selection criteria in the process have been defined in some lesser way than the court convictions referred to? Meaning, if someone sent an anonymous note to the selection board saying that one of the competiting companies was involved in terror, would that suffice to disqualify that company? What effort should be required of the selection committee to identify if such a note was manufactured by a competitor?
I'm not attacking particularly, but critics are definitely required to address this in the context of process, not result.
You are assuming that all people operate on the "good for business" model. That's a pretty big assumption given the history of Islam.
Marx was right about capitalists.
So what do you suppose DP World was referring to when it issued this statement for the press: "We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." They seem to think they'll have some responsibility for security (which, by the way, is entirely correct under current enabling legislation and regulations).
The war is being fought everywhere. If we refuse to do business with the UAE, then we are just giving Osama what he wants.
I hear the pundits say, "2 of the 911 hijackers were UAE citizens."
Yes, and the reason they were UAE citizens is because Osama picked them in order to drive a wedge between them and us. If we're going to make that the basis for our decision, then Osama's strategy is working.
The issue is not that, but rather security. I'm not sure this really impacts our security negatively. It might be a positive because it will force the government to do a better job of looking over their shoulder, and because it shows the world that we are not going to be cowed by these terrorists. And as I said, it does narrow down the list of likely targets, if we assume that Osama will focus his efforts on these 6 ports. That's a good thing. Right now, we have no idea where he wants to strike.
On the other hand, it clearly is a political mess, but when you're in charge of the government, you can't make every decision on the basis of how it affects the poll numbers. You've gotta be concerned about whether it's good policy more than whether it's popular.
I believe the U.A.E. provides all kinds of bases, use of airspace, etc...
Just for the record, I did start my statement with, "for the sake of argument I will assume...." I realize that assumption may have is shortcomings, but I will also assume that our government has vetted the business plan (which will include security details) and has arrived at the conclusion that Dubai World Ports (I think that's the Co name) is a genuine business interest, not a terrorist front. They have already stated that personnel operating the ports will remain in their jobs. They are not going to bring in a bunch of Islamic radical thugs to do the work. They will have to abide by all US laws including employment regulations.
Now, I suppose they could be lying through their teeth....
Well, hell. Why stop there? Let em rent a building next to the White House. Much ado about nothing anyway
Guess we can start calling "W"...'VETO Corleone"
There is already a major wedge based on values, culture, and religion. Port security by a country that has a 86% negative opinion of the US is not a good idea.
"Those holding a favourable view of the US in Saudi Arabia were four per cent, 11 per cent in Morocco, 14 per cent in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and 15 per cent in Jordan".
"Wars are fought by Nations ergo diminish or get rid of Sovereign Nations and you eliminate war in the age of Mass destruction."
I can see the merit in that line of thought. Putting it in practice is not that easy. And yes, honesty would be the way to go.
This is from the State Department Web site. I am not sure about this whole deal but I think more facts need to get out there regarding the United States' relationship with U.A.E. over the years. I believe we have 6 airbases in U.A.E., we use their airspace constantly without issues, etc...
"You are assuming that all people operate on the "good for business" model. "
A hardcore capitalist can't even conceive of any other motivation.
When is this old, tired piece of dialogue from an aging crime-family movie going to become passe? I know, maybe when we remove the criminals from our midst.
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.