Posted on 02/22/2006 2:41:12 PM PST by iPod Shuffle
Posted on Wed, Feb. 22, 2006
Bush port defiance fuels bipartisan anger
TOM RAUM
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - President Bush's marquee issue, the war on terror, is being turned against him by Democrats and rebelling members of his own party in an election-year dustup over a deal that allows an Arab company to manage major U.S. ports.
People in both parties are suggesting it's another case of Bush seeming to be tone deaf to controversy - on top of government eavesdropping, Katrina recovery and Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident.
The storm is forcing the president to choose between losing face with the Arab world and embarking on what would be his first veto battle with the GOP-led Congress. And it has enabled Democrats to seemingly outflank him on a key GOP issue: national security.
Has Bush lost his way politically - or at least his touch?
"In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO - but HELL NO," conservative Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., wrote Bush in a terse letter on Wednesday that she also posted on her Web site.
No matter that no American port is actually being sold, Bush faces a spreading rebellion among Republicans, Democrats and port-state governors.
"I think somebody dropped the ball. Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y.
At issue: Bush's strong defense of an arrangement that would put a government-owned United Arab Emirates company in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
The deal transferring port management from a British firm to Dubai Ports World has already been approved by both companies and an administration review panel.
Despite Bush's assertion that UAE has been one of the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror, both Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois threatened legislation to put the deal on hold. Bush, in turn, vowed to cast his first veto - if necessary - to stop any such attempt.
"It's a strange thing for Bush to have slipped into, given the savvy you expected from this administration, with a vice president who spent over a decade on Capitol Hill," said Princeton University political scientist Fred Greenstein. "It seems as if his people would have seen that there was potential for trouble, and at least done their homework on the Hill."
Although a veto showdown could still be avoided, port-deal opponents were optimistic they could muster the two-thirds majorities needed to override one. "This deal doesn't pass the national security test. I think it is a mistake," said Rep. Jim Saxton, R-N.J., chairman of a House subcommittee on terrorism threats.
Bush learned about the arrangement himself only in recent days amid increasing news coverage, said presidential spokesman Scott McClellan.
While Bush had struck a defiant tone on Tuesday in back-to-back sessions with reporters on Air Force One and outside the White House, McClellan on Wednesday acknowledged Congress should have been briefed earlier "given all the attention that has been focused on this and given the fact that it has been mischaracterized."
The phrase "tone deaf" to describe Bush's interaction with Congress was uttered by lawmakers as politically different as Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joseph Biden, D-Del.
The Dubai Ports deal "is not a national security issue," suggested GOP consultant Rich Galen. "It is an issue of this administration having a continuing problem with understanding how these things will play in the public's mind and not taking steps to set the stage so these things don't come as a shock and are presented in their worst possible light."
With Bush's ratings stuck at about 40 percent, the incident is one more major distraction to his efforts to focus on his second-term domestic agenda.
Syndicated radio host Laura Ingraham was among the conservatives criticizing the deal, asking on her Wednesday program, "How do we know people they're hiring are passing background checks?"
The dispute brought to mind a 1999 flap when conservatives admonished the Clinton administration for acquiescing on Panama's awarding of a contract to a China company, Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., to run ports at both ends of the Panama Canal.
But then, almost all the criticism was from Republicans. Now, it's bipartisan.
"I think there are certain things you have to be really worried about. And one of them is port safety," said Robert O. Boorstein, a senior national security aide in the Clinton White House.
"You have to call it an incredible tin ear that this administration could do that, with nobody stopping and saying, `excuse me?' said Boorstein, now with the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
---
When Israel wanted to bar Hamas from the elections, Bush sent Rice to say "no", they will participate.
Let's not rewrite history.
Well not that bad.
Yeah, he thought Miers would blow over, too.
Update: The Rear Admiral reminded Hugh Hewitt that the guys who work our ports are our American Longshoremen...the mighty all American dockworkers...a more patriotic bunch you cannot find.
Suggesting maybe a little over-reaction?
Here I was all set to watch our dis-enchanted former "loyalists" throw out the baby with the wash water.
Do you have a problem with Congressional review? There's no rush, is there?
Well said. For all the thousands of posts on the subject, you said it best. Succinct and on target.
It is politcally stupid and not worth a veto.
....well, it will get veto'd cause when you follow the MONEY you will see Daddy Bush and Carlucci of Carlyl Group sold part of CSX to the Dubai crew and they always get their money...that's why they love Bubba, he was so good to them in Mena AR after taking his cut for all the drug smuggling for the CIA and BushI pals...
always about the money...
Just as we cannot possibly win in Iraq without help from indigenous Arab allies, so too the UAE would be much more capable than the British (or us) of identifying and interdicting terrorist plots of the wacko-militant-Jihadist-fundamentalist-we-already-have-a-Constitution-it's-the-Koran minority members of their own culture aimed at ports where Black Gold & Texas Tea are unloaded for American addicts to consume.
The UAE has vital, FINANCIAL & SURVIVAL interests at stake in safely delivering the product and continuing to live life that completely transcend whole multitudes of virgins promised to those bent on dying sooner rather than later for Allah...
Hugh just spoke with Gaffney on the Port Deal.
He's deeply concerned. Seriously.
More from him:
http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200602220830.asp
1) WMDs are not smuggled as easily through manufacturing as they are ports. Manufacturers goods must come through ports.
2)I am not aware of any manufacturers on American soil or anywhere else for that matter, owned by countries where the favored male child's name is Mohammad
3) No large manufacturers in the United States are owned by foreign governments.
Your comparison is not a good one. I would not have nearly as big of a problem with UAE manufacturing their national automobile here.
what is hugh's take
He's Hugh. Fair. Open. Willing to hear all points.
Conservative.
He's got Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School on next.
Balanced.
Even allows callers who use the term "Jump the Shark" in conversation.
He sees this as a "door" for our enemies.
Thanks for the lecture, but if you got your head out of computer, you'd see the Tsunami out there against this.
The money used to fund the 9/11, most of it was sent to the hijackers thru the UAE banking system. Two of the Hi Jackers were originally from the UAE.
The UAE stone walled US efforts to track Al Quaeda bank accounts after 9/11.
They do not recognize Israel as a sovereign State.
The UAE was a transfer point for shipments of nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
Maybe you should try some of your own prescribed meds..
(And notice I'm not even talkin about the flood of ILLEGAL aliens thru our porous insecure borders)..sw
thanks for the details
This has been answered a million times. First yeah they dont recognize Israel. I realize that but even good ole Joe LIberiman doesnt seem to have a problem with that. If we had to wait to have commerce with people till they recognized Israel well maybe my grandchildren will see it. I support Israel but thats not a issue. In fact doing stuff like this having the UAE engage the World makes it more likely that they will eventally engage Israel. Since 911 they have supported us in public and non public ways. Time to reward that.
The fact that 2 guys came from UAE doesnt matter. 5 million people condemmed because of that. PLease. If we want allies we got to treat them as allies. The only Tusunami is breaking is hysteria.
The way I understand this is that the Brits were a COMPANY, but the UAE is a GOVERNMENT. While I'll admit I do not understand the whole thing, I am wary of an Arab government being involved.
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.